People v. Colin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Colin

5 A.D.3d 189, 772 N.Y.S.2d 807

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 189 (People v. Colin) 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. Colin, 5 A.D.3d 189, 772 N.Y.S.2d 807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered October 24, 2001, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The record establishes that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909 [1990]). In any event, were we to find that the waiver was invalid, or that it did not encompass his present challenge to the court’s declaration of a mistrial, we would find that the court properly exercised its discretion when it declared a mistrial, on the second day of deliberations, upon the basis of two [190]*190notes from the jury stating that it could not reach a unanimous verdict (see People v Baptiste, 72 NY2d 356, 360-361 [1988]; Matter of Plummer v Rothwax, 63 NY2d 243 [1984]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Williams, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered October 24, 2001, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The record establishes that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909 [1990]). In any event, were we to find that the waiver was invalid, or that it did not encompass his present challenge to the court’s declaration of a mistrial, we would find that the court properly exercised its discretion when it declared a mistrial, on the second day of deliberations, upon the basis of two [190]*190notes from the jury stating that it could not reach a unanimous verdict (see People v Baptiste, 72 NY2d 356, 360-361 [1988]; Matter of Plummer v Rothwax, 63 NY2d 243 [1984]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Williams, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 189, 772 N.Y.S.2d 807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-colin-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack