People v. Dyckman

114 A.D.3d 994, 979 N.Y.S.2d 872
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 13, 2014
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 114 A.D.3d 994 (People v. Dyckman) 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. Dyckman, 114 A.D.3d 994, 979 N.Y.S.2d 872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

McCarthy, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered September 15, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the first degree.

[995]*995Defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with robbery in the first degree with the understanding that he would be sentenced to a prison term of 12 years, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. In connection with the plea agreement, defendant also waived his right to appeal. County Court sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of 12 years followed by five years postrelease supervision and this appeal ensued.

County Court distinguished the waiver of the right to appeal from the rights automatically forfeited by defendant upon his plea of guilty as well as his waiver of indictment. Furthermore, defendant acknowledged his understanding of the right to appeal and executed a detailed written waiver in open court. Accordingly, defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Marshall, 108 AD3d 884, 884 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]; People v Musser, 106 AD3d 1334, 1335 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 997 [2013]; People v Joyce, 91 AD3d 986, 986-987 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 864 [2012]). Defendant’s valid waiver of appeal precludes his argument that County Court’s imposition of the agreed-upon sentence was unduly harsh and excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Musser, 106 AD3d at 1335; People v Martin, 105 AD3d 1266, 1267 [2013]).

Lahtinen, J.E, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

People v. Beblowski
131 A.D.3d 1303 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Burritt
127 A.D.3d 1433 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Donah
127 A.D.3d 1413 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Balbuena
123 A.D.3d 1384 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Griffin
117 A.D.3d 1339 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 A.D.3d 994, 979 N.Y.S.2d 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dyckman-nyappdiv-2014.