People v. Burke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burke

25 A.D.3d 722, 811 N.Y.S.2d 714

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 25 A.D.3d 722 (People v. Burke) 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. Burke, 25 A.D.3d 722, 811 N.Y.S.2d 714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered January 8, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to appeal as part of his plea agreement (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911 [1990]; People v Milgrom, 281 AD2d 492, 493 [2001]). His oral and written waivers constitute an unrestricted waiver of all possible appellate claims despite the fact that, at the time the appeal waiver was exacted, the defendant did not expressly waive every potential claim or available defense (see People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570, 574-575 [1998]). Thus, there was a valid waiver of the right to appeal, which encompassed the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain identification evidence (see People v Kemp, supra; People v Williams, 36 NY2d 829 [1975], cert denied 423 US 873 [1975]). Since the suppression issue is the only issue raised on appeal, the judgment of conviction must be affirmed (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 283-285 [1992]). Cozier, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered January 8, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to appeal as part of his plea agreement (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911 [1990]; People v Milgrom, 281 AD2d 492, 493 [2001]). His oral and written waivers constitute an unrestricted waiver of all possible appellate claims despite the fact that, at the time the appeal waiver was exacted, the defendant did not expressly waive every potential claim or available defense (see People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570, 574-575 [1998]). Thus, there was a valid waiver of the right to appeal, which encompassed the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain identification evidence (see People v Kemp, supra; People v Williams, 36 NY2d 829 [1975], cert denied 423 US 873 [1975]). Since the suppression issue is the only issue raised on appeal, the judgment of conviction must be affirmed (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 283-285 [1992]). Cozier, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 722, 811 N.Y.S.2d 714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burke-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack