People v. Ibrahim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ibrahim

48 A.D.3d 1095, 849 N.Y.S.2d 850

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 48 A.D.3d 1095 (People v. Ibrahim) 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. Ibrahim, 48 A.D.3d 1095, 849 N.Y.S.2d 850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), rendered November 9, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the facts and circumstances surrounding his waiver of the right to appeal establish that it was voluntary, knowing and intelligent (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 [1989]; People v Jeter, 15 AD3d 885 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 887 [2005]). The valid waiver by defendant of his right to appeal encompasses his further contention concerning the severity of the sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Although the contention of defendant that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence based upon his postplea arrest survives his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Williams, 35 AD3d 1198, 1199 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 928 [2007]), we conclude that defendant’s contention lacks merit. Here, the record establishes that the court did not impose an enhanced sentence but in fact imposed the agreed-upon sentence. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Smith, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), rendered November 9, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the facts and circumstances surrounding his waiver of the right to appeal establish that it was voluntary, knowing and intelligent (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 [1989]; People v Jeter, 15 AD3d 885 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 887 [2005]). The valid waiver by defendant of his right to appeal encompasses his further contention concerning the severity of the sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Although the contention of defendant that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence based upon his postplea arrest survives his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Williams, 35 AD3d 1198, 1199 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 928 [2007]), we conclude that defendant’s contention lacks merit. Here, the record establishes that the court did not impose an enhanced sentence but in fact imposed the agreed-upon sentence. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Smith, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 1095, 849 N.Y.S.2d 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ibrahim-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack