PEOPLE v. CLARK (2023)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Daniel W. CLARK, appellant.

2021–09449

Decided: June 28, 2023

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., LINDA CHRISTOPHER, PAUL WOOTEN, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.

Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Amanda E. Schaefer of counsel), for appellant. Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Meaghan Powers of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Chris Ann Kelley, J.), imposed August 6, 2021, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the People's contention, the record does not demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). The record reflects that the Supreme Court made its own offer of sentence to the defendant and required that the defendant waive his right to appeal, but did not set forth any reason for demanding an appeal waiver, and none is apparent on the record (see People v. Sutton, 184 AD3d 236, 244–245). Accordingly, the purported waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim (see id. at 244–245).

However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WOOTEN and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network