People v. Caviness

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Caviness

95 A.D.3d 622, 943 N.Y.S.2d 882

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 2012·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J., at suppression hearing; Michael R. Sonberg, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered June 1, 2010, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender whose prior felony conviction was a violent felony, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal. Defendant’s written waiver, taken together with the oral colloquy in which defendant confirmed he understood he was giving up his right to appeal, established that the waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]; compare People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257 [2011]).

Regardless of whether defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we find that defendant’s argument concerning the suppression hearing is unavailing and that there is no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur — Tom, J.R, Andrias, Renwick, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J., at suppression hearing; Michael R. Sonberg, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered June 1, 2010, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender whose prior felony conviction was a violent felony, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal. Defendant’s written waiver, taken together with the oral colloquy in which defendant confirmed he understood he was giving up his right to appeal, established that the waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]; compare People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257 [2011]).

Regardless of whether defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we find that defendant’s argument concerning the suppression hearing is unavailing and that there is no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur — Tom, J.R, Andrias, Renwick, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

People v. Caviness, 95 A.D.3d 622, 943 N.Y.S.2d 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

95 A.D.3d 622 (People v. Caviness) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related