People v. Joseph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Joseph

69 A.D.3d 1056, 891 N.Y.2d 680

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 1056 (People v. Joseph) 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. Joseph, 69 A.D.3d 1056, 891 N.Y.2d 680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In January 2004, defendant was convicted of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and was sentenced to five years of probation. Following her arrest in March 2008 for various crimes, she was charged with violating the terms of her probation. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to the probation violation and waived her right to appeal. Her probation was revoked and she was sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to 2 to 6 years in prison. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant’s sole claim is that the sentence is harsh and excessive. She is precluded, however, from raising this claim by her knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal [1057]*1057(see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Dillon, 61 AD3d 1221, 1222 [2009]; People v Borom, 55 AD3d 1041, 1042 [2008]).

Cardona, EJ., Peters, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

In January 2004, defendant was convicted of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and was sentenced to five years of probation. Following her arrest in March 2008 for various crimes, she was charged with violating the terms of her probation. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to the probation violation and waived her right to appeal. Her probation was revoked and she was sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to 2 to 6 years in prison. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant’s sole claim is that the sentence is harsh and excessive. She is precluded, however, from raising this claim by her knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal [1057]*1057(see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Dillon, 61 AD3d 1221, 1222 [2009]; People v Borom, 55 AD3d 1041, 1042 [2008]).

Cardona, EJ., Peters, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 1056, 891 N.Y.2d 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-joseph-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack