People v. Pittman, 48 A.D.3d 709

Blackstone HTML

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MALIK RAMSEY, Appellant. [852 NYS2d 304]—

null

Note: Per instructions, I am skipping the partial content from the previous case at the top of the page and converting only the first complete opinion found on the page. The final line belongs to the start of a subsequent opinion and is included as found at the bottom of the source image but the body for that case is not provided.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supеrvision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sеntence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]). In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive tо the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‍be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a periоd of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a mattеr of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the рurported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in thе third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervisiоn of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justicе, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to apрeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‍a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, thе sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incоrrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considerеd knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinatе term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the dеfendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinаte term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of аll of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‍imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven yeаrs and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did nоt include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentеnce of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years аnd by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-relеase supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‍term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the grоund that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his convictiоn of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicatеd herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therеfore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of 1 1/2 years.

The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v. Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v. Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v. Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).

In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Florio, ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‍Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Prudenti, P.J.

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Pittman

Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date Published: Feb 19, 2008

Citations: 48 A.D.3d 709; 852 N.Y.S.2d 305

Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.