Court Opinion

ID: 9926489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 20:06:26.488655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:07.113242
License: Public Domain

People v Cabral (2024 NY Slip Op 00324)

People v Cabral

2024 NY Slip Op 00324

Decided on January 24, 2024

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 January 24, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI
LARA J. GENOVESI
LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.

2022-00304
 (Ind. No. 1360/20)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vVictor Cabral, appellant.

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Brian Perbix of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Keith Dolan of counsel; Lauren Slattery 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 (Heidi C. Cesare, J.), imposed January 11, 2022, 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, he validly waived his right to appeal (see People v Porter, 210 AD3d 911, 911). The Supreme Court "adequately advise[d] the defendant of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right" (People v Vilmont, 216 AD3d 1113, 1114). The court sufficiently "explained, and the defendant acknowledged that he understood, the separate and distinct nature of the waiver of the right to appeal, and the court did not mischaracterize the nature or scope of the waiver" (People v Headley, 197 AD3d 1329, 1330). The defendant therefore "knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal at the time he entered his plea of guilty" (id. at 1329). The defendant's valid waiver of that right precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Delacruz, 213 AD3d 691, 691; People v Smith, 208 AD3d 1369, 1369-1370; People v Lawrence, 184 AD3d 587, 587).
CONNOLLY, J.P., IANNACCI, GENOVESI and VENTURA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Acting Clerk of the Court