People v. Perez
| Decision Date | 01 June 2016 |
| Citation | 30 N.Y.S.3d 918 (Mem),140 A.D.3d 799,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04243 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Boris Augustin PEREZ, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
James A. McCarty, Acting District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Jennifer Spencer and Laurie Sapakoff of counsel; Jack Peterson–Daily on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Cacace, J.), rendered September 30, 2014, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal does not foreclose review of his contention that he was deprived of his right to due process because the sentencing court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry to determine whether he violated a condition of his plea agreement requiring that he not be arrested for a new crime (see People v. Cousar, 128 A.D.3d 716, 9 N.Y.S.3d 96 ; People v. Arrington, 94 A.D.3d 903, 941 N.Y.S.2d 877 ). However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the inquiry conducted by the sentencing court was sufficient to determine that there was a legitimate basis for the defendant's post-plea arrest, and thus satisfied the requirements of due process (see People v. Driscoll, 131 A.D.3d 766, 14 N.Y.S.3d 596 ; People v. Arrington, 94 A.D.3d 903, 941 N.Y.S.2d 877 ).
Since the defendant was informed of the maximum sentence that could be imposed if he failed to comply with the conditions of his plea agreement, his general waiver of his right to appeal encompasses his claim that the enhanced sentence was excessive (see People v. Lococo, 92 N.Y.2d 825, 827, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57, 699 N.E.2d 416 ; People v. Frazier, 127 A.D.3d 1229, 1230, 7 N.Y.S.3d 523 ; People v. Gonzalez, 93 A.D.3d 679, 939 N.Y.S.2d 714 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Allen
...637 ; People v. Martin, 54 A.D.3d 776, 863 N.Y.S.2d 491 ), under the circumstances, the error was harmless, as there was overwhelming 30 N.Y.S.3d 918 evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that he would have been acquitted if not for the error in admitting the tes......
- People ex rel. Franza v. Connolly
-
People v. Juwan L.D.
...; People v. Lococo, 92 N.Y.2d 825, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57, 699 N.E.2d 416 ; People v. Hazel, 145 A.D.3d 797, 42 N.Y.S.3d 358 ; People v. Perez, 140 A.D.3d 799, 30 N.Y.S.3d 918 ; People v. Miles, 268 A.D.2d 489, 489–490, 703 N.Y.S.2d 491 ).Nevertheless, the amended sentence imposed was not excessiv......
-
People v. Norelius
...140 A.D.3d 79930 N.Y.S.3d 908 (Mem)2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04242The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Gerard NORELIUS, appellant.Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.June 1, 2016.Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant.Thomas J. Spota, ......