People v. Jones

277 A.D.2d 1019, 716 N.Y.S.2d 842, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11563
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 13, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Because Supreme Court did not advise defendant of the potential periods of incarceration, the waiver by defendant of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see, People v Cormack, 269 AD2d 815; People v Wynn, 262 AD2d 1052). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Tills, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 5th Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.

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

People v. Jones, 277 A.D.2d 1019, 716 N.Y.S.2d 842, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

277 A.D.2d 1019 (People v. Jones) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Seymour
282 A.D.2d 871 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)