From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Stokes

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 6, 2024
2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 5461 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

Opinion

No. 2023-01211 Ind. No. 70197/22

11-06-2024

The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Mayling Stokes, appellant.

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Rebekah J. Pazmiño of counsel), for appellant. Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Thomas B. Litsky and Timothy Pezzoli of counsel), for respondent.


Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Rebekah J. Pazmiño of counsel), for appellant.

Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Thomas B. Litsky and Timothy Pezzoli of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, BARRY E. WARHIT, LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by her motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lisa Grey, J.), imposed December 12, 2022, upon her plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the People's contention, the record does not demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256). Although the defendant executed a written appeal waiver form, it "implied that [she] was completely waiving h[er] right to prosecute an appeal as a poor person, and to have an attorney assigned if indigent" (People v Shanks, 37 N.Y.3d 244, 253 [alterations and internal quotation marks omitted]). Relatedly, in its oral colloquy, the Supreme Court "failed to advise the defendant that the waiver did not encompass the loss of attendant rights to counsel and poor person relief" (People v King, ___ A.D.3d ___, ___, 2024 NY Slip Op 04782, *1 [2d Dept]; see People v Ortega, 228 A.D.3d 784, 784; People v Hopkins, 227 A.D.3d 734, 734). Since the defendant did not validly waive her right to appeal, this Court is not precluded from considering the merits of her contention that the sentence imposed was excessive.

Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

DILLON, J.P., MALTESE, WARHIT and VENTURA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Stokes

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 6, 2024
2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 5461 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)
Case details for

People v. Stokes

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Mayling Stokes…

Court:Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 6, 2024

Citations

2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 5461 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)