Judicial Insight
Back to feed
(the sentence stands)CriminalCourt of AppealsAppeal

People v. Morochomorocho

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Sep 30, 2026
Docket
2024-12226
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05556
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 2, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. : sentenced the defendant after a guilty plea.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    (the sentence stands)

TL;DR

  1. 1The case involves a man who pled guilty and thinks his sentence is excessive.
  2. 2The court decided the man's waiver of appeal rights blocks his claim about the sentence.
  3. 3The waiver was valid, and no exceptions applied to challenge the sentence.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Can the defendant appeal the sentence as excessive despite the waiver?

    Holding · No, the appeal is blocked because the waiver of appeal rights was valid and covered the sentence.

Why it matters

This affects defendants who plead guilty and later feel their sentence is too harsh, emphasizing the importance of appeal waivers in plea deals.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

Man says his sentence is too harsh. Can he still appeal?

  1. 1A man pled guilty and thinks his sentence is too harsh.
  2. 2He waived his right to appeal when he took the plea deal.
  3. 3Now, he's asking if he can still contest the sentence.

Man says his sentence is too harsh. Can he still appeal?

Be the first juror

Parties

  • Prosecution

    People

  • Appellee

    Morochomorocho

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
People v Morochomorocho 2026 NY Slip Op 05556 September 30, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. The People of the State of New York, respondent, v Oscar Morochomorocho, appellant. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on September 30, 2026 2024-12226, (Ind. No. 71365/23) Angela G. Iannacci, J.P. Paul Wooten Lillian Wan Donna-Marie E. Golia Lisa S. Ottley, JJ. Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Melissa Kanas of counsel), for appellant. Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Kerriann Kelly of counsel), for respondent. [*1] DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (John B. Collins, J.), imposed December 21, 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 record also demonstrates that the appeal waiver did not encompass the purported waiver of the defendant's rights pursuant to Penal Law § 60.12. Thus, although improper, the purported waiver of the defendant's rights pursuant to Penal Law § 60.12 had no effect on the validity of the appeal waiver (see People v Delarosa, 250 AD3d 625, 625-626; see generally People v N.H., ___ NY3d ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 02437). 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). IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, WAN, GOLIA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court
View on CourtListener