People v. Caba

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Caba

12 A.D.3d 268, 784 N.Y.S.2d 543

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 268 (People v. Caba) 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. Caba, 12 A.D.3d 268, 784 N.Y.S.2d 543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J), rendered July 21, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 6 years to life and 7 to 21 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The record establishes that defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made, and [269]*269that the waiver encompassed his excessive sentence claim (People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733 [1998]). Therefore, defendant “elect[ed] to foreclose review of [his] negotiated sentence” (People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]). In any event, were we to find that defendant did not validly waive his right to appeal, we would perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J), rendered July 21, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 6 years to life and 7 to 21 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The record establishes that defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made, and [269]*269that the waiver encompassed his excessive sentence claim (People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733 [1998]). Therefore, defendant “elect[ed] to foreclose review of [his] negotiated sentence” (People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]). In any event, were we to find that defendant did not validly waive his right to appeal, we would perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 268, 784 N.Y.S.2d 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-caba-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack