People v. Hospie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hospie

115 A.D.3d 677, 981 N.Y.S.2d 552

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

DecidedMarch 5, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.3d 677 (People v. Hospie) 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. Hospie, 115 A.D.3d 677, 981 N.Y.S.2d 552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lorenzo, J.), rendered July 12, 2012, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, including the “age, experience and background” of the defendant (People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 [1989]), we conclude that the defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive the right to appeal. Therefore, our review of the defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed was excessive is not precluded. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and LaSalle, 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, Westchester County (Lorenzo, J.), rendered July 12, 2012, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, including the “age, experience and background” of the defendant (People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 [1989]), we conclude that the defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive the right to appeal. Therefore, our review of the defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed was excessive is not precluded. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 677, 981 N.Y.S.2d 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hospie-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack