Court Opinion

ID: 4079972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-10-05 19:53:09.152815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:01:51.856801
License: Public Domain

People v Stiles (2016 NY Slip Op 06516)

People v Stiles

2016 NY Slip Op 06516

Decided on October 5, 2016

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 5, 2016
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.
MARK C. DILLON
SANDRA L. SGROI
ROBERT J. MILLER
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

2014-03409
 (Ind. No. 5364/11)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vTavajah Stiles, appellant.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Paul Skip Laisure of counsel; Lauren Margolies on the memorandum), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Victor Barall of counsel; Robert Ho on the memorandum), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cyrulnik, J.), imposed March 5, 2014, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that he received an explanation of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right (see People v Romero-Flores, 128 AD3d 1102, 1102; People v McRae, 123 AD3d 848, 848-849; People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133, 144). On the record presented, we conclude that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see generally People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-267; People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 735). Accordingly, the defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Hardy, 120 AD3d 1358, 1358; People v Arteev, 120 AD3d 1255, 1255; People v Alexander, 104 AD3d 862, 862).
ENG, P.J., DILLON, SGROI, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court