From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hobson

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 12, 2015
131 A.D.3d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2015-08-12

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Fitzroy HOBSON, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Kathleen Whooley of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Joyce Slevin of counsel; Gregory Musso on the memorandum), for respondent.


Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Kathleen Whooley of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Joyce Slevin of counsel; Gregory Musso on the memorandum), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Walsh, J.), imposed February 15, 2012, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid ( see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645; People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297) and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675). ENG, P.J., BALKIN, DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and DUFFY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hobson

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 12, 2015
131 A.D.3d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

People v. Hobson

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Fitzroy HOBSON, appellant.

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

Date published: Aug 12, 2015

Citations

131 A.D.3d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
131 A.D.3d 546
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 6518

Citing Cases

People v. Mendez

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's purported waiver…

People v. Mendez

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's purported waiver…