People v. Kirton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kirton

279 A.D.2d 591, 719 N.Y.S.2d 604, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 568

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 591 (People v. Kirton) 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. Kirton, 279 A.D.2d 591, 719 N.Y.S.2d 604, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), imposed June 16, 1998, on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived, without limitation, the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see, People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). Since the defendant was informed of the maximum sentence which would be imposed pursuant to the plea agreement, his general waiver of his right to appeal encompasses his claim that the agreed-upon sentence, which was imposed, was excessive (see, People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825; People v Brathwaite, 63 NY2d 839). Bracken, Acting P. J., Altman, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), imposed June 16, 1998, on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived, without limitation, the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see, People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). Since the defendant was informed of the maximum sentence which would be imposed pursuant to the plea agreement, his general waiver of his right to appeal encompasses his claim that the agreed-upon sentence, which was imposed, was excessive (see, People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825; People v Brathwaite, 63 NY2d 839). Bracken, Acting P. J., Altman, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 591, 719 N.Y.S.2d 604, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kirton-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack