People v. Bones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bones

148 A.D.3d 1793, 49 N.Y.S.3d 335

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2017

StatusPublished

This text of 148 A.D.3d 1793 (People v. Bones) 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. Bones, 148 A.D.3d 1793, 49 N.Y.S.3d 335 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara Sheldon, J.), rendered January 13, 2016. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). That valid waiver constitutes a “general unrestricted waiver” that [1794]*1794encompasses his contention that the sentence imposed is unduly harsh and severe (People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).

Present — Smith, J.P., Peradotto, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Scudder, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara Sheldon, J.), rendered January 13, 2016. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). That valid waiver constitutes a “general unrestricted waiver” that [1794]*1794encompasses his contention that the sentence imposed is unduly harsh and severe (People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).

Present — Smith, J.P., Peradotto, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A.D.3d 1793, 49 N.Y.S.3d 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bones-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack