People v. Canty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Canty

23 A.D.3d 1066, 803 N.Y.S.2d 493

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 A.D.3d 1066 (People v. Canty) 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. Canty, 23 A.D.3d 1066, 803 N.Y.S.2d 493 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James R Punch, J.), rendered June 21, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

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

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.16 [12]), defendant challenges County Court’s suppression rulings. Those challenges are encompassed by defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to appeal {see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v Gilbert, 17 AD3d 1164 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 762 [2005]; see generally People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 285 [1992]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James R Punch, J.), rendered June 21, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

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

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.16 [12]), defendant challenges County Court’s suppression rulings. Those challenges are encompassed by defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to appeal {see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v Gilbert, 17 AD3d 1164 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 762 [2005]; see generally People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 285 [1992]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 1066, 803 N.Y.S.2d 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-canty-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack