People v. Allred

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Allred

270 A.D.2d 926, 706 N.Y.S.2d 656, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3417

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 926 (People v. Allred) 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

People v. Allred, 270 A.D.2d 926, 706 N.Y.S.2d 656, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he did not receive timely notice of his right to testify before the Grand Jury. He concedes, however, that he waived his right to appeal as part of his plea of guilty, and that waiver encompasses his contentions (see generally, People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911). In any event, by pleading guilty, defendant “removed this issue from the case and, lacking express statutory authorization, he cannot resuscitate it on appeal” (People v Taylor, 65 NY2d 1, 7; see, People v Holt, 210 AD2d 994, 995). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Contiguglia, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 5th Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he did not receive timely notice of his right to testify before the Grand Jury. He concedes, however, that he waived his right to appeal as part of his plea of guilty, and that waiver encompasses his contentions (see generally, People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911). In any event, by pleading guilty, defendant “removed this issue from the case and, lacking express statutory authorization, he cannot resuscitate it on appeal” (People v Taylor, 65 NY2d 1, 7; see, People v Holt, 210 AD2d 994, 995). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Contiguglia, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 5th Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 926, 706 N.Y.S.2d 656, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-allred-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack