People v. Crespo

6 A.D.3d 303, 775 N.Y.S.2d 138, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4775
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Crespo. Read the opinion of the Court — 292 A.D.2d 177

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County J.), February 26, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of six years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal, and this 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, and we would reject the related arguments contained in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

People v. Crespo, 6 A.D.3d 303, 775 N.Y.S.2d 138, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4775 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

6 A.D.3d 303 (People v. Crespo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Hidalgo
698 N.E.2d 46 (New York Court of Appeals, 1998)
People v. Seaberg
541 N.E.2d 1022 (New York Court of Appeals, 1989)