JONES, CHARLES L., PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

JONES, CHARLES L., PEOPLE v

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 19, 2013

DocketKA 12-00586

StatusPublished

This text of JONES, CHARLES L., PEOPLE v (JONES, CHARLES L., PEOPLE v) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

JONES, CHARLES L., PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

782 KA 12-00586 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHARLES L. JONES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DONNA A. MILLING OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P. Franczyk, J.), rendered September 12, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [b]), defendant contends that he did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to appeal. We reject that contention. Defendant waived his right to appeal both orally and in writing, and we conclude that “ ‘[d]efendant’s responses to County Court’s questions unequivocally established that defendant understood the proceedings and was voluntarily waiving the right to appeal’ ” (People v Buryta, 85 AD3d 1621, 1622; see People v Lyons, 86 AD3d 930, 930, lv denied 17 NY3d 954). Defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his contention that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for youthful offender status (see People v Jones, 96 AD3d 1637, 1637, lv denied 19 NY3d 1103; People v Rush, 94 AD3d 1449, 1449-1450, lv denied 19 NY3d 967), as well as his contention concerning the severity of the sentence (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255; Jones, 96 AD3d at 1637).

Entered: July 19, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

782 KA 12-00586 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHARLES L. JONES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DONNA A. MILLING OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P. Franczyk, J.), rendered September 12, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [b]), defendant contends that he did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to appeal. We reject that contention. Defendant waived his right to appeal both orally and in writing, and we conclude that “ ‘[d]efendant’s responses to County Court’s questions unequivocally established that defendant understood the proceedings and was voluntarily waiving the right to appeal’ ” (People v Buryta, 85 AD3d 1621, 1622; see People v Lyons, 86 AD3d 930, 930, lv denied 17 NY3d 954). Defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his contention that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for youthful offender status (see People v Jones, 96 AD3d 1637, 1637, lv denied 19 NY3d 1103; People v Rush, 94 AD3d 1449, 1449-1450, lv denied 19 NY3d 967), as well as his contention concerning the severity of the sentence (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255; Jones, 96 AD3d at 1637).

Entered: July 19, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

JONES, CHARLES L., PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-charles-l-people-v-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack