People v. Crespo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Crespo

6 A.D.3d 303, 775 N.Y.S.2d 138, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4775

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

DecidedApril 22, 2004

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 303, 775 N.Y.S.2d 138, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crespo-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack