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

People v. Aponte

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Oct 6, 2026
Docket
Ind No. 1357/21|Appeal No. 7166|Case No. 2023-04604|
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05740
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 7, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. Supreme Court: sentenced the defendant to a harsh penalty.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    (the sentence stands as )

TL;DR

  1. 1The defendant appealed his sentence, arguing it was too harsh.
  2. 2The court decided to uphold the original sentence from the .
  3. 3The key reason was that the sentence was deemed .

Key issues

  1. 1

    Was the sentence imposed by the excessive?

    Holding · The court ruled that the sentence was and upheld the 's decision.

Why it matters

This decision affects the defendant's future and reinforces standards for fair sentencing.

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

If you were the judge?

A man argues his sentence is too harsh. Should it be changed?

  1. 1The defendant was convicted and sentenced in 2023 for a crime in New York.
  2. 2He believes the punishment he received is unfair and has appealed the decision.
  3. 3Now, the court must decide if the trial court's sentence was justified or if it should be changed.

Was the sentence imposed by the fair and justified?

Parties

  • Prosecution

    People

  • Appellee

    Aponte

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
People v Aponte 2026 NY Slip Op 05740 October 6, 2026 Appellate Division, First 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 Julio Aponte, Defendant-Appellant. Decided and Entered: October 06, 2026 Ind No. 1357/21|Appeal No. 7166|Case No. 2023-04604| Before: Moulton, J.P., Gesmer, Shulman, Hagler, Parker-Raso, JJ. Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Mark W. Zeno of counsel), for appellant. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Stacie Nadel of counsel), for respondent. [*1] An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Curtis J. Farber, J.), rendered August 23, 2023, Said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, It is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 6, 2026 Counsel for appellant is referred to § 606.5, Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department.
View on CourtListener