The People, etc., respondent, v. Rolando Santana, appellant. (2014)

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

The People, etc., respondent, v. Rolando Santana, appellant.

2013–03112 2013–03113 2013–03114 (Ind.Nos. 73 /13, 74 /13, 75 /13)

Decided: November 26, 2014

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J. RUTH C. BALKIN THOMAS A. DICKERSON SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Adrienne M. Gantt of counsel; Jeff Kinkle on the memorandum), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and William Branigan of counsel; Gina Chiappetta on the memorandum), for respondent.

Submitted—August 29, 2014

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from three sentences of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chin–Brandt, J.), all imposed March 6, 2013, on the ground that the sentences were excessive.

ORDERED that the sentences are affirmed.

The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257; People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d 248; People v. Contreras, 112 AD3d 649), and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim. However, the sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

ENG, P.J., BALKIN, DICKERSON and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

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Out of date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