KELLY, RAYNA A., PEOPLE v ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    842
    KA 11-00415
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    RAYNA A. KELLY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (SUSAN C. MINISTERO OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DONNA A. MILLING OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell
    P. Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered December 2, 2010. The judgment
    convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the
    fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth
    degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her upon her
    plea of guilty of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law §
    155.30 [1]) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth
    degree (§ 165.45 [1]), defendant contends that the waiver of the right
    to appeal is not valid and challenges the severity of the sentence.
    Although the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily,
    and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v
    Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), we conclude that the valid waiver of the
    right to appeal does not encompass the challenge to the severity of
    the sentence because Supreme Court failed to advise defendant of the
    potential periods of incarceration or the potential maximum term of
    incarceration (see People v Newman, 21 AD3d 1343; People v McLean, 302
    AD2d 934; cf. People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91
    NY2d 733, 737), and there was no specific sentence promise at the time
    of the waiver (cf. People v Semple, 23 AD3d 1058, 1059, lv denied 6
    NY3d 852). Nevertheless, on the merits, we conclude that the sentence
    is not unduly harsh or severe.
    Entered:   June 29, 2012                           Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 11-00415

Filed Date: 6/29/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016