Court Opinion

ID: 5832983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 22:30:17.082234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:30.361188
License: Public Domain

The defendant’s valid waivers of his right to appeal from the judgments of conviction of attempted robbery in the second degree, in satisfaction of Kings County indictment No. 7617/08, and robbery in the third degree, in satisfaction of Kings County indictment No. 9970/08, preclude review of his contentions that the sentences imposed thereon were excessive (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 735 [1998]; People v Pertillar, 37 AD3d 740 [2007]). The defendant did not validly waive his right to appeal from the judgment of conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, in satisfaction of Kings County indictment No. 7036/08 (see People v Bradshaw, 76 AD3d 566 [2010], lv granted 15 NY3d 896 [2010]; cf. People v Ramos, 7 NY3d at 738). The defendant, however, cannot be heard to complain that his sentence was excessive since he received the sentence promised to him during the plea proceedings (see People v Martinez, 78 AD3d 966 [2010]). Prudenti, PJ., Mastro, Angiolillo, Belen and Austin, JJ, concur.