People v. Clemens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Clemens

259 A.D.2d 758, 685 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3149

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 758 (People v. Clemens) 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. Clemens, 259 A.D.2d 758, 685 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3149 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered July 31, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based upon matters which are dehors the record and cannot be reviewed on this appeal (see, People v Crisano, 247 AD2d 403). We note that although the defendant raised this issue on a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10, he never sought leave to appeal from the denial of the motion (see, CPL 450.15 [1]).

The defendant validly waived his right to challenge the sentence as excessive (see, People v Allen, 82 NY2d 761; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, 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 County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered July 31, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based upon matters which are dehors the record and cannot be reviewed on this appeal (see, People v Crisano, 247 AD2d 403). We note that although the defendant raised this issue on a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10, he never sought leave to appeal from the denial of the motion (see, CPL 450.15 [1]).

The defendant validly waived his right to challenge the sentence as excessive (see, People v Allen, 82 NY2d 761; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 758, 685 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clemens-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack