People v. Drummond
Docket 2024-01730
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02667
- Docket
- 2024-01730
Appeal from a criminal sentence imposed after a guilty plea in Supreme Court, Kings County
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a February 16, 2024 sentence imposed on Darius Drummond following his guilty plea. Drummond challenged the sentence as excessive, but the court held his appellate waiver was valid and therefore bars review of the sentencing claim. Relying on controlling precedent, the court concluded the waiver foreclosed his appeal and affirmed the judgment without reaching the merits of the excessiveness argument.
Issues Decided
- Whether the defendant's appellate waiver was valid and bars appellate review
- Whether the defendant's claim that the sentence was excessive could be considered given the valid waiver
Court's Reasoning
The court applied New York precedents holding that a valid, knowing, and voluntary waiver of the right to appeal generally precludes appellate review of sentencing claims. Because the record supported the validity of Drummond's waiver, the court found it must enforce that waiver and therefore refused to reach the merits of the excessive-sentence challenge. Controlling decisions cited include People v Lopez and related authority establishing the rule.
Authorities Cited
- People v Lopez6 NY3d 248
- People v Annunziata246 AD3d 755
Parties
- Appellant
- Darius Drummond
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Jane C. Tully
- Judge
- Colleen D. Duffy
- Judge
- Cheryl E. Chambers
- Judge
- Deborah A. Dowling
- Judge
- Carl J. Landicino
- Judge
- Phillip Hom
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-29
- Sentence imposed
- 2024-02-16
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult defense counsel about waiver validity
If the defendant believes the waiver was not knowing or voluntary, discuss potential extraordinary relief or a motion to vacate the plea in the trial court raising those specific defects.
- 2
Consider collateral post-conviction remedies
If direct appellate review is barred, the defendant may explore a CPL 440.10 motion or other post-conviction relief to challenge the plea or sentence on appropriate grounds.
- 3
Comply with sentence and conditions
Until and unless relief is granted, the defendant should comply with the sentence and any supervision or reporting requirements to avoid additional penalties.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court affirmed the sentence because the defendant had validly waived his right to appeal, preventing review of his claim that the sentence was excessive.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The decision directly affects the defendant, Darius Drummond, and affirms the lower court's sentence.
- Why didn't the court decide whether the sentence was too long?
- Because the defendant had validly waived his appellate rights, the court was barred from reviewing the sentencing claim and therefore did not address its merits.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Because the Appellate Division affirmed based on a valid waiver, further appeal would face the same barrier unless a higher court finds the waiver invalid or other exceptional grounds exist.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Drummond - 2026 NY Slip Op 02667 People v Drummond 2026 NY Slip Op 02667 April 29, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department The People of the State of New York, respondent, v Darius Drummond, appellant. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 29, 2026 2024-01730, (Ind. No. 72440/23) Colleen D. Duffy, J.P. Cheryl E. Chambers Deborah A. Dowling Carl J. Landicino Phillip Hom, JJ. Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Tammy E. Linn of counsel; Maris G. Medina on the memorandum), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Avshalom Yotam of counsel; Hannah Thomas on the memorandum), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jane C. Tully, J.), imposed February 16, 2024, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive. ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed. The defendant's contentions regarding the validity of the waiver of the right to appeal are without merit ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256; People v Annunziata , 246 AD3d 755). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d at 255-256; People v Annunziata , 246 AD3d 755). DUFFY, J.P., CHAMBERS, DOWLING, LANDICINO and HOM, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph