People v. Espinal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Espinal

277 A.D.2d 464, 715 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12265

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 27, 2000·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered June 17, 1997, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

“ ‘[W]here the plea allocution demonstrates a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal, intended comprehensively to cover all aspects of the case, and no constitutional or statutory mandate or public policy concern prohibits its acceptance, the waiver will be upheld completely’ ” (People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833; see, People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570, 575). Here, the defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal as part of the plea agreement encompassed the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment based on an unreasonable delay in sentencing (see, People v Jones, 255 AD2d 456).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered June 17, 1997, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

“ ‘[W]here the plea allocution demonstrates a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal, intended comprehensively to cover all aspects of the case, and no constitutional or statutory mandate or public policy concern prohibits its acceptance, the waiver will be upheld completely’ ” (People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833; see, People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570, 575). Here, the defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal as part of the plea agreement encompassed the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment based on an unreasonable delay in sentencing (see, People v Jones, 255 AD2d 456).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

People v. Espinal, 277 A.D.2d 464, 715 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12265 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

277 A.D.2d 464 (People v. Espinal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related