From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Joseph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 14, 2010
69 A.D.3d 1056 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 101931.

January 14, 2010.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.), rendered June 6, 2008, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Erin C. Morigerato, Albany, for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Christopher D. Horn of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Peters, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur.


In January 2004, defendant was convicted of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and was sentenced to five years of probation. Following her arrest in March 2008 for various crimes, she was charged with violating the terms of her probation. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to the probation violation and waived her right to appeal. Her probation was revoked and she was sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to 2 to 6 years in prison. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant's sole claim is that the sentence is harsh and excessive. She is precluded, however, from raising this claim by her knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256; People v Dillon, 61 AD3d 1221, 1222; People v Borom, 55 AD3d 1041, 1042).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Joseph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 14, 2010
69 A.D.3d 1056 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

People v. Joseph

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SHANTANE JOSEPH…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 14, 2010

Citations

69 A.D.3d 1056 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 313
891 N.Y.S.2d 680

Citing Cases

People v. Jones

Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the sentence is harsh and excessive. She is, however, precluded…

People v. Gertzberg

We affirm. Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that his sentence is harsh and excessive. Nonetheless, he…