People v Williams

Annotate this Case
People v Williams 2016 NY Slip Op 05277 Decided on July 1, 2016 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on July 1, 2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
624 KA 11-00916

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

v

HARRY L. WILLIAMS, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DANIEL GROSS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.



Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered January 26, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]), defendant contends that the waiver of the right to appeal is not valid and challenges the severity of the sentence. We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence because "no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant's right to appeal" with respect to his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence (People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862, lv denied 21 NY3d 1076; see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928). We nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: July 1, 2016

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court



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.