Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. TERRENCE M. DEARMYER, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2] ), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is unenforceable and that his sentence is unduly harsh and severe. As the People correctly concede, defendant's waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence because his purported waiver of the right to appeal occurred before Supreme Court advised him of the maximum sentence he could receive (see People v. Monaghan, 101 AD3d 1686, 1686; People v. Farrell, 71 AD3d 1507, 1507, lv. denied 15 NY3d 804). Nevertheless, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Although defendant faced a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment (see Penal Law 70.06[6][c] ), the court sentenced him to 41/212 years' imprisonment, which was only 11/212 years more than the minimum sentence permitted by law. We note that, according to the presentence investigation report, defendant “failed to take any responsibility for the present offense and showed no remorse” for the injuries he inflicted upon the victim. We also note that defendant had been sentenced to probation on a prior felony conviction, but violated the conditions of probation and was resentenced to a term of incarceration. Under the circumstances, we perceive no basis for modifying defendant's sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][b] ).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: KA 11–01377
Decided: June 14, 2013
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)