Court Opinion

ID: 4085848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-10-08 00:03:38.010566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:06.255865
License: Public Domain

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