People v. Iregui
Docket 2023-07651
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 02418
- Docket
- 2023-07651
Appeal from a judgment of conviction upon a guilty plea and sentence in Supreme Court, Queens County
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the conviction and sentence of defendant Christopher Iregui. Iregui pleaded guilty in Queens County Supreme Court to attempted burglary in the second degree and was sentenced on July 24, 2023. On appeal he challenged the judgment and the severity of his sentence, but the appellate court found the sentence was not excessive and therefore upheld the conviction and sentence without further modification.
Issue Decided
- Whether the sentence imposed following the guilty plea was excessive
Court's Reasoning
The court reviewed the sentence for excessiveness and applied controlling precedent on sentencing review. It concluded that the sentence fell within acceptable bounds and did not shock the court's sense of justice under People v Suitte, so no modification was warranted. Because the challenge concerned only the sentence and the court found it appropriate, the conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Authorities Cited
- People v Suitte90 AD2d 80
Parties
- Appellant
- Christopher Iregui
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Toni M. Cimino
- Judge
- Colleen D. Duffy
- Judge
- Deborah A. Dowling
- Judge
- Janice A. Taylor
- Judge
- Laurence L. Love
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-22
- Judgment rendered
- 2023-07-24
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult defense counsel about further appeal
If the defendant wishes to seek additional review, speak with counsel immediately about applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and any deadlines for doing so.
- 2
Consider post-conviction options
Discuss with counsel whether there are any collateral remedies available, such as a motion to withdraw the plea or post-conviction relief, and the likelihood of success.
- 3
Comply with sentence and corrections requirements
Ensure the defendant follows conditions of the sentence, reporting and custody requirements, and any rehabilitation or parole procedures to avoid additional penalties.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence for attempted second-degree burglary; the sentence was held not to be excessive.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Defendant Christopher Iregui is directly affected because his conviction and sentence were upheld; the People (prosecution) prevailed on appeal.
- What does "not excessive" mean here?
- It means the appellate court reviewed the sentence and found it was within legal limits and did not shock the court's sense of justice under applicable precedent.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Possibly to the New York Court of Appeals, but further review would require permission (leave) and typically involves narrow grounds; consult counsel about time limits and standards for further appeal.
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 Iregui - 2026 NY Slip Op 02418 People v Iregui 2026 NY Slip Op 02418 April 22, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department The People of the State of New York, respondent, v Christopher Iregui, appellant. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 22, 2026 2023-07651, (Ind. No. 71167/22) Colleen D. Duffy, J.P. Deborah A. Dowling Janice A. Taylor Laurence L. Love, JJ. Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Robin Richardson of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Charles T. Pollak of counsel; Sarah Walter on the brief), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Toni M. Cimino, J.), rendered July 24, 2023, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte , 90 AD2d 80). DUFFY, J.P., DOWLING, TAYLOR and LOVE, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph