People v. Flagg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Flagg

200 A.D.2d 758, 608 N.Y.S.2d 863

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 758 (People v. Flagg) 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. Flagg, 200 A.D.2d 758, 608 N.Y.S.2d 863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), rendered April 30, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Appellate review of the issue raised by the defendant was waived by him as part of his plea bargain (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). In any event, the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he might receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, 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 County Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), rendered April 30, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Appellate review of the issue raised by the defendant was waived by him as part of his plea bargain (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). In any event, the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he might receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 758, 608 N.Y.S.2d 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-flagg-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack