People v. Eldridge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Eldridge

2018 NY Slip Op 3766

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

DecidedMay 24, 2018

Docket6682 5281/10

StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 3766 (People v. Eldridge) 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. Eldridge, 2018 NY Slip Op 3766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

People v Eldridge (2018 NY Slip Op 03766)

People v Eldridge

2018 NY Slip Op 03766

Decided on May 24, 2018

Appellate Division, First 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 May 24, 2018
Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli, Kapnick, Kahn, JJ.

6682 5281/10

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Mike Eldridge, Defendant-Appellant.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (David Bernstein of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Katherine Kulkarni of counsel), respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J. at suppression hearing; A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J. at plea and sentencing), rendered January 26, 2012, as amended February 2, 2012, convicting defendant of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 14 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal. The oral colloquy, which avoided conflating the right to appeal with the rights forfeited by pleading guilty, met or exceeded the minimum standards for such a colloquy (see People v Bryant, 28 NY3d 1094 [2016]). Furthermore, the colloquy was supplemented by an appropriate written waiver.

The valid waiver forecloses review of defendant's suppression and excessive sentence claims. Regardless of whether defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we find that the hearing court properly denied defendant's suppression motion, and we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 24, 2018

CLERK

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