People v. Rountree

<div>People v Rountree - 2026 NY Slip Op 02135

<div> skip to main content </div>

<div> <p>It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.</p> </div>

<div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span title="Law Reporting Bureau Home Page">Law Reporting <br>Bureau <span></span></span> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div>

<nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>People v Rountree</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 02135</p> <p>April 8, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Division, Second Department</p> <p>Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</p> <p>This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</p> </div> <div> <p>The People of the State of New York, respondent,</p> <p>v</p> <p>Brandon Rountree, appellant. Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Russ Altman-Merino of counsel), for appellant.</p> </div> <p>Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department</p> <p>Decided on April 8, 2026</p> <p>2023-05354, (Ind. No. 71252/22)</p> <p>Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.</p> <p>Paul Wooten</p> <p>Lillian Wan</p> <p>Donna-Marie E. Golia</p> <p>Lisa S. Ottley, JJ.</p> <div> <p>Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel; Dallas S. Droz on the memorandum), for respondent.</p> </div> <span>[*1]</span> <p>DECISION &amp; ORDER</p> <p>Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (David J. Kirschner, J.), imposed May 8, 2023, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.</p> <p>ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.</p> <p>Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant did not validly waive his right to appeal the excessiveness of the sentence imposed (<i>see</i> <i>People v Arriaza-Ortega</i>, 216 AD3d 1175, 1175; <i>People v Moye</i>, 164 AD3d 698, 698). During the plea allocution, the Supreme Court expressly excluded a challenge to the excessiveness of the sentence imposed from the challenges foreclosed by the waiver of the right to appeal by telling the defendant that he was giving up his right to appeal, with the exception of challenging the excessiveness of his sentence (<i>see</i> <i>People v Moye</i>, 164 AD3d at 698).</p> <p>Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (<i>see</i> <i>People v Suitte</i>, 90 AD2d 80).</p> <p>IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, WAN, GOLIA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.</p> <p>ENTER:</p> <p>Darrell M. Joseph</p> <p>Clerk of the Court</p> </div>

<div> <footer> <div> <p>Court Decisions</p> All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search </div> <div> <p>Resources</p> RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting &amp; Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index </div> <div> <p>About</p> About the Law Reporting Bureau About our Operations Contact Us Twitter </div> <div> <p>Quick Contact Info</p> <p>17 Lodge Street</p> <p>Albany, NY 12207</p> <p>Phone: (518) 453-6900</p> </div> </footer> </div> <div> <p>Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.</p> </div>

</div>