People v. Drake

2021 NY Slip Op 03727, 145 N.Y.S.3d 461, 195 A.D.3d 1442
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 11, 2021
Docket516 KA 19-00585
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 2021 NY Slip Op 03727 (People v. Drake) 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. Drake, 2021 NY Slip Op 03727, 145 N.Y.S.3d 461, 195 A.D.3d 1442 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

People v Drake (2021 NY Slip Op 03727)
People v Drake
2021 NY Slip Op 03727
Decided on June 11, 2021
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on June 11, 2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, BANNISTER, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

516 KA 19-00585

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

JOHN DRAKE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.


THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (BARBARA J. DAVIES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JOHN J. FLYNN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. LOWRY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.



Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Kenneth F. Case, J.), rendered January 4, 2019. The judgment convicted defendant upon a plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (§ 220.09 [1]), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and that his sentence is unduly harsh and severe. The record establishes that the oral colloquy, together with the written waiver of the right to appeal, was adequate to ensure that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 564 [2019], cert denied —— US —&mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]; People v Heath, 192 AD3d 1473, 1473 [4th Dept 2021]), and that valid waiver forecloses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]).

Entered: June 11, 2021

Mark W. Bennett

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Pringle
2026 NY Slip Op 00697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026)
People v. Jones
2025 NY Slip Op 03922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2021 NY Slip Op 03727, 145 N.Y.S.3d 461, 195 A.D.3d 1442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-drake-nyappdiv-2021.