People v. Billins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Billins

68 A.D.3d 1794, 890 N.Y.2d 838

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 1794 (People v. Billins) 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. Billins, 68 A.D.3d 1794, 890 N.Y.2d 838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1], [12]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). That valid waiver encompasses defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution and, in any event, defendant failed to preserve that challenge for our review (see People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]). The challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence is also encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present — Scudder, EJ., Hurlbutt, Smith and Centra, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1], [12]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). That valid waiver encompasses defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution and, in any event, defendant failed to preserve that challenge for our review (see People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]). The challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence is also encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present — Scudder, EJ., Hurlbutt, Smith and Centra, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 1794, 890 N.Y.2d 838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-billins-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack