People v. Martinez
Docket 113415
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 02481
- Docket
- 113415
Appeal from a judgment convicting defendant upon his guilty plea to robbery in the third degree after waiver of indictment and an agreed interim probation condition
Summary
The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Jose Martinez's conviction and sentence for third-degree robbery after he pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver. The court found the oral plea colloquy adequately explained the appeal waiver, separate from rights lost by pleading guilty, and that Martinez acknowledged discussing the waiver with counsel and understood its consequences. Because the waiver was knowing and voluntary and Martinez had been informed of the possible prison exposure if he failed interim probation, his challenge to the severity of the sentence was barred.
Issues Decided
- Whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal as part of his plea agreement
- Whether the oral plea colloquy and written waiver were sufficient to establish the validity of the appeal waiver
- Whether the defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence is preserved or foreclosed by the appeal waiver
Court's Reasoning
The court looked to the totality of the circumstances and concluded the oral colloquy made clear the appeal waiver was separate from rights forfeited by the guilty plea and identified issues that could still be appealed. The defendant acknowledged discussing the waiver with counsel and assured the court he understood it, supporting that the waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Because the waiver was valid and the defendant had been informed of the maximum sentencing exposure tied to unsuccessful interim probation, his attack on sentence severity was barred by the waiver.
Authorities Cited
- People v Rowe239 AD3d 1202 (3d Dept 2025)
- People v Williams235 AD3d 1066 (3d Dept 2025)
- People v Peters238 AD3d 1391 (3d Dept 2025)
Parties
- Appellant
- Jose Martinez
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Attorney
- Peter F. Stroe
- Attorney
- Lee C. Kindlon (Emily Schultz of counsel)
- Judge
- Andra Ackerman
- Judge
- Clark, J.P.
- Judge
- Aarons
- Judge
- Pritzker
- Judge
- McShan
- Judge
- Mackey
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-23
- Judgment rendered
- 2022-03-24
- Calendar date (argument)
- 2026-03-20
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult defense counsel about post-conviction options
Discuss with an attorney whether any non-waived issues remain or whether collateral relief (e.g., motion to vacate the plea or habeas corpus) is available given the valid appeal waiver.
- 2
Consider seeking leave to appeal or appellate review
If counsel identifies a possible preserved issue or jurisdictional question, consider applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or filing a motion permitted by appellate rules.
- 3
Comply with sentence and classification procedures
Until any successful post-conviction relief, follow custody and prison procedures and any classification or programming recommendations to mitigate sentence impact.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Jose Martinez is affected; the decision upholds his prison sentence after he failed interim probation under his plea agreement.
- Why can't the defendant challenge the sentence?
- Because he agreed to an appeal waiver during his plea, and the court found that waiver validly and knowingly made, so sentencing challenges are barred by that waiver.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- The opinion notes the defendant waived the right to appeal; further review (such as an application for leave to appeal to a higher court) may be limited and would depend on preservation of non-waived issues and permission from the higher court.
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 Martinez - 2026 NY Slip Op 02481 People v Martinez 2026 NY Slip Op 02481 April 23, 2026 Appellate Division, Third Department The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Martinez, Appellant. Decided and Entered:April 23, 2026 113415 Calendar Date: March 20, 2026 Before: Clark, J.P., Aarons, Pritzker, Mcshan And Mackey, JJ. Peter F. Stroe, Albany, for appellant. Lee C. Kindlon, District Attorney, Albany (Emily Schultz of counsel), for respondent. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Andra Ackerman, J.), rendered March 24, 2022, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the third degree. In satisfaction of numerous pending charges, defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with robbery in the third degree and agreed to waive his right to appeal. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, defendant was placed on interim probation for one year, with the understanding that, upon successful completion thereof, he would be sentenced to a period of probation. Defendant was advised that, if he did not successfully complete the period of interim probation, a maximum prison term of 2⅓ to 7 years could be imposed. Defendant was subsequently arrested several times. As a result of his unsuccessful compliance with the terms of his interim probation, County Court sentenced defendant to 2⅓ to 7 years in prison. Defendant appeals. Notwithstanding defendant's challenges to the alleged insufficiencies regarding the overbreadth and execution of the written appeal waiver, we find that the oral colloquy was sufficient to ensure that defendant understood the nature and consequences of his appeal waiver. To that end, County Court advised defendant that the appeal waiver was separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by his guilty plea and made clear that certain appellate issues survived appellate review. Defendant, who acknowledged having discussed the appeal waiver with counsel, assured the court that he understood the nature and consequences of waiving his right to appeal. Upon our review of the record, we are satisfied that the totality of the circumstances reflects that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal ( see People v Rowe , 239 AD3d 1202, 1202 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 984 [2025]; People v Williams , 235 AD3d 1066, 1067 [3d Dept 2025]). Given the valid appeal waiver, and that defendant was informed of the maximum sentencing exposure in the event that his performance on interim probation was unsuccessful, his challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed is foreclosed ( see People v Peters , 238 AD3d 1391, 1392 [3d Dept 2025]; People v Ashley , 211 AD3d 1174, 1174-1175 [3d Dept 2022]). Clark, J.P., Aarons, Pritzker, McShan and Mackey, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.