People v. Andrews

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Andrews

193 A.D.2d 1137, 600 N.Y.S.2d 652

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

DecidedMay 28, 1993

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 1137 (People v. Andrews) 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. Andrews, 193 A.D.2d 1137, 600 N.Y.S.2d 652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant [1138]*1138knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see, People v Saunders, 190 AD2d 1092). Defendant does not contend that the waiver was constitutionally defective and there is no public policy impediment to enforcing it. Thus, we affirm based on the absence of any reviewable issues that survive the waiver (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 285). Were we to review the merits, we would conclude that the court’s denial of youthful offender status was not an abuse of discretion and that the sentence imposed was not harsh and excessive. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Drury, J.—Robbery, 2nd Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Green, Pine, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant [1138]*1138knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see, People v Saunders, 190 AD2d 1092). Defendant does not contend that the waiver was constitutionally defective and there is no public policy impediment to enforcing it. Thus, we affirm based on the absence of any reviewable issues that survive the waiver (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 285). Were we to review the merits, we would conclude that the court’s denial of youthful offender status was not an abuse of discretion and that the sentence imposed was not harsh and excessive. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Drury, J.—Robbery, 2nd Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Green, Pine, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 1137, 600 N.Y.S.2d 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-andrews-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack