People v. Foy

• Decision Date: 29 November 2011
• Citation: 933 N.Y.S.2d 599,89 A.D.3d 1103,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08773
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ryan FOY, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08773
89 A.D.3d 1103
933 N.Y.S.2d 599

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Ryan FOY, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Nov. 29, 2011.

Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Adrienne M. Gantt of counsel; Nicholas Flath on the memorandum), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Amy Appelbaum of counsel; Reuben Arnold on the memorandum), for respondent.

Appeals by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from three sentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J., on Indictment No. 7036/08; Foley, J., on Indictment Nos. 7617/08 and 9970/08), all *600 imposed April 17, 2009, on the ground that the sentences were excessive.

ORDERED that the sentences are affirmed.

The defendant's valid waivers of his right to appeal from the judgments of conviction of attempted robbery in the second degree, in satisfaction of Kings County Indictment No. 7617/08, and robbery in the third degree, in satisfaction of Kings County Indictment No. 9970/08, preclude review of his contentions that the sentences imposed thereon were excessive ( see People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 735, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46; People v. Pertillar, 37 A.D.3d 740, 831 N.Y.S.2d 212). The defendant did not validly waive his right to appeal from the judgment of conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, in satisfaction of Kings County Indictment No. 7036/08 ( see People v. Bradshaw, 76 A.D.3d 566, 906 N.Y.S.2d 93, lv. granted 15 N.Y.3d 896, 912 N.Y.S.2d 585, 938 N.E.2d 1020; cf. People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d at 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222). The defendant, however, cannot be heard to complain that his sentence was excessive since he received the sentence promised to him during the plea proceedings ( see People v. Martinez, 78 A.D.3d 966, 910 N.Y.S.2d 684).

PRUDENTI, P.J., MASTRO, ANGIOLILLO, BELEN and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.