Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of New York v. Rayna A. Kelly

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department


June 29, 2012

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
RESPONDENT,
v.
RAYNA A. KELLY,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell P. Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered December 2, 2010.

People v Kelly

Appellate Division, Fourth 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 June 29, 2012

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

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

20120629

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.