People v. Degroat

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Degroat

140 A.D.3d 1185, 33 N.Y.S.3d 766

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

DecidedJune 29, 2016

Docket2015-05349

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 1185 (People v. Degroat) 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. Degroat, 140 A.D.3d 1185, 33 N.Y.S.3d 766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered June 1, 2015, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, *1186 257 [2006]; People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570 [1998]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]) precludes appellate review of his claims that his preplea request to relieve his assigned counsel and to substitute new counsel was improperly denied (see People v Forshey, 294 AD2d 868 [2002]; People v Green, 156 AD2d 378 [1989]), and that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 [1989]; People v Hawthorne, 85 AD3d 819 [2011]).

Mastro, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Maltese, 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 (DeRosa, J.), rendered June 1, 2015, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, *1186 257 [2006]; People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570 [1998]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]) precludes appellate review of his claims that his preplea request to relieve his assigned counsel and to substitute new counsel was improperly denied (see People v Forshey, 294 AD2d 868 [2002]; People v Green, 156 AD2d 378 [1989]), and that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 [1989]; People v Hawthorne, 85 AD3d 819 [2011]).

Mastro, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 1185, 33 N.Y.S.3d 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-degroat-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack