People v Payton

Annotate this Case
People v Payton 2013 NY Slip Op 05922 Decided on September 18, 2013 Appellate Division, Second 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 on September 18, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
L. PRISCILLA HALL
SHERI S. ROMAN
JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
2012-07455
(Ind. No. 11-00154)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Gilda Payton, appellant.




James D. Licata, New City, N.Y. (Lois Cappelletti of counsel),
for appellant.
Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar
J. Yeger of counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Alfieri, J.), rendered June 18, 2012, convicting her of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

At the plea allocution, the County Court sufficiently advised the defendant of the nature of the right to appeal, and the record establishes that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived that right. Thus, although the Rockland County pre-printed form waiver of the right to appeal signed by the defendant contained erroneous statements with regard to the waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Edmunson,AD3d, 2013 NY Slip Op 05699 [2d Dept 2013]), the defendant's waiver of her right to appeal was valid (see id.; People v Pelaez, 100 AD3d 803, 804). Accordingly, review of the defendant's contention that the sentence imposed was excessive is precluded (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255).
DILLON, J.P., HALL, ROMAN and COHEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

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.