What did the court decide?

The court affirmed the sentence because the defendant had validly waived his right to appeal, so the appellate court would not review the claim the sentence was excessive.

Who is affected by this decision?

The decision affects Mario Lazu, whose sentence remains as imposed by the trial court, and it reinforces the rule that a valid appeal waiver bars later appellate review of sentencing claims.

Why didn't the court rule on whether the sentence was excessive?

Because the record showed the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, binding precedent prevents the appellate court from considering the merits of the sentencing claim.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Possibly, but a valid waiver of appellate rights limits further review; seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals would generally require showing an exception or that the waiver was invalid.

People v. Lazu

Docket 2023-05803

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Criminal AppealAffirmed

Filed: Apr 29, 2026 · 2 days ago
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 02674
Docket: 2023-05803

Appeal from a sentence imposed upon the defendant following a guilty plea in Supreme Court, Kings County.

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the sentence imposed on Mario Lazu after his guilty plea. The defendant appealed only on the ground that the sentence was excessive, but the court concluded he had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal. Because the appeal waiver was valid, the court found it could not consider the challenge to the sentence and therefore affirmed the lower court's June 27, 2023 sentence.

Issues Decided

Whether the defendant validly waived his right to appeal following a guilty plea
Whether an appeal-waiver precludes appellate review of a claim that the sentence was excessive

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on the record showing the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his appellate rights, citing the standards set in People v Thomas and People v Lopez. Because the waiver was valid, established precedent bars appellate review of the claim that the sentence was excessive. That procedural bar alone determined the appeal, so the court affirmed without reaching the merits of the excessiveness claim.

Authorities Cited

People v Thomas34 NY3d 545
People v Lopez6 NY3d 248

Parties

Appellant: Mario Lazu
Respondent: The People of the State of New York
Judge: Abena Darkeh
Judge: Francesca E. Connolly
Judge: Linda Christopher
Judge: Helen Voutsinas
Judge: Laurence L. Love
Judge: Elena Goldberg Velazquez

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-29
Sentence imposed: 2023-06-27

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult defense counsel about appeal options
Discuss with your attorney whether there are grounds to challenge the validity of the appeal waiver or to seek leave to the Court of Appeals despite the waiver.
2
Review sentencing and plea records
Have counsel obtain and review the plea colloquy and sentencing transcript to confirm the waiver was knowing and voluntary and to identify any potential procedural defects.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court affirmed the sentence because the defendant had validly waived his right to appeal, so the appellate court would not review the claim the sentence was excessive.
Who is affected by this decision?: The decision affects Mario Lazu, whose sentence remains as imposed by the trial court, and it reinforces the rule that a valid appeal waiver bars later appellate review of sentencing claims.
Why didn't the court rule on whether the sentence was excessive?: Because the record showed the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, binding precedent prevents the appellate court from considering the merits of the sentencing claim.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Possibly, but a valid waiver of appellate rights limits further review; seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals would generally require showing an exception or that the waiver was invalid.

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 Lazu - 2026 NY Slip Op 02674

People v Lazu

2026 NY Slip Op 02674

April 29, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Mario Lazu, appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on April 29, 2026

2023-05803, (Ind. No. 74793/22)

Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.

Linda Christopher

Helen Voutsinas

Laurence L. Love

Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Alina R. Tulloch of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Melissa Owen of counsel; Caleb Otero 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 (Abena Darkeh, J.), imposed June 27, 2023, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (
see

People v Thomas
, 34 NY3d 545;
People v Lopez
, 6 NY3d 248). 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).

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, VOUTSINAS, LOVE and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph