Summary
This is an unpublished slip opinion from the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirming the defendant’s manslaughter in the first degree conviction following a guilty plea. The court addressed the defendant’s challenge to his sentence, finding that although his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid due to mischaracterizations during the plea colloquy, the sentence itself was not unduly harsh or severe. The court unanimously affirmed the judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was valid
- Whether the sentence imposed for first-degree manslaughter was unduly harsh or severe
Holdings
- The court held that the defendant's purported waiver of the right to appeal was invalid because both the written waiver and the oral colloquy mischaracterized the nature of the right, but this invalidity does not preclude review of the sentence.
- The court held that the sentence was not unduly harsh or severe and therefore affirmed the judgment.
Key quotations
“defendant's purported waiver of the right to appeal is invalid inasmuch as both the signed written waiver and the oral waiver colloquy mischaracterized the nature of the right to appeal”
Factual background
Defendant Jason Nieves pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter and was sentenced. He contended that his written and oral waivers of the right to appeal were invalid, and he challenged the severity of his sentence.
Procedural history
The trial court convicted Nieves upon a guilty plea to first-degree manslaughter on June 26, 2018. Nieves appealed, arguing his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. The Appellate Division reviewed the waiver issue and the severity of the sentence and affirmed the judgment.