MCCLAIN, KYLE, PEOPLE v

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 27, 2013
DocketKA 11-02337
StatusPublished

This text of MCCLAIN, KYLE, PEOPLE v (MCCLAIN, KYLE, 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
MCCLAIN, KYLE, PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

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

1250 KA 11-02337 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KYLE MCCLAIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (KAREN RUSSO-MCLAUGHLIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. HILLERY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell P. Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered August 9, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, unlawful possession of marihuana and failure to obey a stop sign.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]), unlawful possession of marihuana (§ 221.05), and failure to obey a stop sign (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 [a]). We reject defendant’s contention that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. “[T]rial courts are not required to engage in any particular litany during an allocution in order to obtain a valid guilty plea in which defendant waives a plethora of rights, including the right to appeal” (People v Mitchell, 93 AD3d 1173, 1173-1174, lv denied 19 NY3d 999 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Fisher, 94 AD3d 1435, 1435, lv denied 19 NY3d 973). The record establishes that defendant waived his right to appeal in order to secure a sentencing commitment, and Supreme Court properly “ ‘describ[ed] the nature of the right being waived without lumping that right into the panoply of trial rights automatically forfeited upon pleading guilty’ ” (People v Tabb, 81 AD3d 1322, 1322, lv denied 16 NY3d 900, quoting People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 257). Defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the court’s suppression rulings (see Mitchell, 93 AD3d at 1174).

Entered: December 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

Related

People v. Lopez
844 N.E.2d 1145 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Tabb
81 A.D.3d 1322 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Mitchell
93 A.D.3d 1173 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Fisher
94 A.D.3d 1435 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
MCCLAIN, KYLE, PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclain-kyle-people-v-nyappdiv-2013.