People v. Nesbitt
Docket 113194B
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 02480
- Docket
- 113194B
Appeal from a judgment of conviction following guilty pleas to multiple charges and imposition of consecutive prison terms
Summary
The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Anthony Nesbitt’s convictions and sentences following his guilty plea to first-degree criminal contempt, attempted second-degree assault, and second-degree menacing. The court held that Nesbitt’s written appeal waiver was invalid because it failed to clearly explain what collateral challenges survived, so his challenge to sentence was not precluded. On the merits, however, the court found the agreed-upon consecutive sentences lawful and not unduly harsh, declined to modify the sentence in the interest of justice, and noted that any request about a missing letter of support should be made to County Court.
Issues Decided
- Whether the defendant's written appeal waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary
- Whether the agreed-upon consecutive sentences were improper or unduly harsh
- Whether the Appellate Division should modify the sentence in the interest of justice
- Whether County Court failed to include a promised letter of support in the presentence file
Court's Reasoning
The court concluded the appeal waiver was invalid because the written waiver and brief colloquy did not clearly inform the defendant which collateral challenges remained available. Because the waiver was defective, the defendant's sentencing challenge was not barred. On review, the court applied controlling precedent and found the agreed consecutive terms permissible and not excessive, so it declined to reduce the sentence. The court also held that any remedy regarding the missing letter of support belongs to County Court.
Authorities Cited
- People v Appiah218 AD3d 1060 (3d Dept 2023), revd on different grounds 41 NY3d 949 (2024)
- People v Paige243 AD3d 1022 (3d Dept 2025)
- CPL 470.15CPL 470.15
Parties
- Appellant
- Anthony Nesbitt
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Mark Caruso (County Court)
- Attorney
- Cynthia Feathers (for appellant)
- Attorney
- Robert M. Carney; Peter H. Willis (of counsel) (for respondent)
- Judge
- Mackey, J. (opinion)
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-23
- Judgment rendered
- 2021-08-30
- Calendar date (argument)
- 2026-03-25
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider seeking collateral relief in County Court
Because the appeal waiver was invalid and the court directed matters about the presentence file to County Court, the defendant or counsel should file a motion in County Court about the missing letter of support or other presentence issues.
- 2
Consult appellate counsel about further review
If the defendant wishes to pursue further review, he should consult counsel promptly about seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or filing appropriate collateral challenges.
- 3
Prepare for service of sentence and incarceration issues
Given the affirmed terms of imprisonment, defendant should work with counsel and the facility to address classification, intake, and any preparation for conditions of confinement.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide about the appeal waiver?
- The court found the written appeal waiver invalid because it did not clearly explain which collateral challenges the defendant retained.
- Does the decision change the sentence?
- No. Although the waiver was invalid, the court reviewed the sentence and concluded the agreed consecutive terms were lawful and not unduly harsh, so it affirmed them.
- What about the missing letter of support?
- The Appellate Division said any request to address the missing letter should be made to County Court, not to this court.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- A further appeal to the Court of Appeals may be possible in limited circumstances, but the record does not state whether leave to appeal was sought or granted.
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 Nesbitt - 2026 NY Slip Op 02480 People v Nesbitt 2026 NY Slip Op 02480 April 23, 2026 Appellate Division, Third Department The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Nesbitt, Appellant. Decided and Entered:April 23, 2026 113194B Calendar Date: March 25, 2026 Before: Garry, P.J., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Powers, Mackey And Ryba, JJ. Cynthia Feathers, Saratoga Springs, for appellant. Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent. Mackey, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Mark Caruso, J.), rendered August 30, 2021, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal contempt in the first degree, attempted assault in the second degree and menacing in the second degree. In satisfaction of an 11-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the crimes of criminal contempt in the first degree, attempted assault in the second degree and menacing in the second degree. The plea agreement also required defendant to waive his right to appeal. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to the agreed-upon consecutive terms of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years on the two felony convictions and to a lesser concurrent sentence on the menacing conviction. Defendant appealed, and this Court rejected counsel's Anders brief, withheld decision and assigned new counsel to represent defendant on appeal (237 AD3d 1366 [3d Dept 2025]). Initially, we agree with defendant that his appeal waiver is invalid. The written waiver signed by defendant indicates that it "mark[s] the end of [his] case" and advises that he is waiving the right to appeal any matters "which [he] may collaterally attack in any state or federal court." While the written waiver and the brief oral colloquy do advise that some direct appellate review survives, neither clarified that defendant's right to seek collateral relief also survives. Accordingly, defendant's appeal waiver is not knowing, intelligent or voluntary ( see People v Appiah , 218 AD3d 1060, 1061 [3d Dept 2023], revd on different grounds 41 NY3d 949 [2024]). As a result, defendant's challenge to the severity of his sentence is not precluded ( see People v Paige , 243 AD3d 1022, 1023 [3d Dept 2025]; People v Gouge , 239 AD3d 1143, 1144 [3d Dept 2025]). That said, we do not find the imposition of the agreed-upon consecutive sentences to be improper ( see People v Loadholt , 234 AD3d 1188, 1189 [3d Dept 2025]) or unduly harsh or severe ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [b]), and we decline defendant's invitation to modify his sentence in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). Finally, although defendant contends that County Court failed to follow through with its commitment at sentencing to attach a letter of support written by his fiancÉe to his presentence report, any request for such relief should be addressed to County Court. Garry, P.J., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Powers and Ryba, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.