People v. Hubert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hubert

100 A.D.3d 1443, 953 N.Y.S.2d 536

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 100 A.D.3d 1443 (People v. Hubert) 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. Hubert, 100 A.D.3d 1443, 953 N.Y.S.2d 536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J.), [1444]*1444rendered June 1, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that she knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence (see id. at 255; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]). Present — Smith, J.P, Fahey, Sconiers, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

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

— Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J.), [1444]*1444rendered June 1, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that she knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence (see id. at 255; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]). Present — Smith, J.P, Fahey, Sconiers, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 1443, 953 N.Y.S.2d 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hubert-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack