People v Neiles

Annotate this Case
People v Neiles 2015 NY Slip Op 04171 Decided on May 14, 2015 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: May 14, 2015
105743

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v

JASON NEILES, Appellant.

Calendar Date: March 31, 2015
Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Devine and Clark, JJ.

James P. Milstein, Public Defender, Albany (Theresa M. Suozzi of counsel), for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Brittany L. Grome of counsel), for respondent.



MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), rendered November 26, 2012 in Albany County, (1) convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted assault in the second degree, and (2) which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

While on probation supervision, defendant became intoxicated and struck a male parking lot attendant. He subsequently waived indictment and was charged in a superior court information with attempted assault in the second degree. He pleaded guilty to this charge, admitted to violating his probation and waived his right to appeal. In accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced as a second felony offender to 2 to 4 years on the attempted assault charge and 1 to 3 years on the probation violation, to run consecutively. Defendant

appeals.

Defendant's sole challenge is to the severity of the sentence. He is, however, precluded from raising this claim by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Balbuena, 123 AD3d 1384, 1386 [2014]; People v Alexander, 123 AD3d 1340, 1341 [2014]). Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.