People v. Dimeglio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dimeglio

261 A.D.2d 131, 687 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4648

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

DecidedMay 4, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 131 (People v. Dimeglio) 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. Dimeglio, 261 A.D.2d 131, 687 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Price, J.), rendered September 19, 1996, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of attempted arson in the second degree and attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 years and 6 to 12 years, respectively, unanimously modified, on the law, to replace the conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree with a conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.

As the People correctly concede, the conviction should be modified as indicated in order to conform with the intent of the parties (see, People v Rosale, 227 AD2d 185). Defendant’s challenge to the validity of his waiver of the right to appeal is without merit inasmuch as the record reveals that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal after a thorough and careful allocution by the court (see, People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737; People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 911). Defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal bars any challenge to the alleged excessiveness of his sentence (People v Hidalgo, supra; People v Frazier, 228 AD2d 171, lv denied 89 NY2d 922). Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Price, J.), rendered September 19, 1996, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of attempted arson in the second degree and attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 years and 6 to 12 years, respectively, unanimously modified, on the law, to replace the conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree with a conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed.

As the People correctly concede, the conviction should be modified as indicated in order to conform with the intent of the parties (see, People v Rosale, 227 AD2d 185). Defendant’s challenge to the validity of his waiver of the right to appeal is without merit inasmuch as the record reveals that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal after a thorough and careful allocution by the court (see, People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737; People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 911). Defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal bars any challenge to the alleged excessiveness of his sentence (People v Hidalgo, supra; People v Frazier, 228 AD2d 171, lv denied 89 NY2d 922). Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 131, 687 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dimeglio-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack