People v. Espinal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Espinal

251 A.D.2d 54, 672 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6444

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

DecidedJune 4, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 54 (People v. Espinal) 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. Espinal, 251 A.D.2d 54, 672 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6444 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.), rendered December 18, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 6 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

The record establishes that defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and included waiver of the right to challenge his sentence as excessive (People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). Accordingly, review of his present excessive sentence claim is precluded (People v Frazier, 228 AD2d 171, lv denied 89 NY2d 922). In any event, we perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.), rendered December 18, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 6 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

The record establishes that defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and included waiver of the right to challenge his sentence as excessive (People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). Accordingly, review of his present excessive sentence claim is precluded (People v Frazier, 228 AD2d 171, lv denied 89 NY2d 922). In any event, we perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 54, 672 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-espinal-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack