People v. Loewel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Loewel

302 A.D.2d 933, 753 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 913

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 933 (People v. Loewel) 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. Loewel, 302 A.D.2d 933, 753 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (Martoche, J.), entered October 16, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree.

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

Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of defendant, [934]*934Supreme Court did not err in requiring that he waive his right to appeal as a condition of the plea agreement despite the People’s failure to seek such a waiver (see People v Vargas, 258 AD2d 350, 350, lv denied 93 NY2d 903; see generally People v Grant, 99 AD2d 536). That waiver encompasses defendant’s challenges to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v Dewitt, 295 AD2d 937, lv denied 98 NY2d 709). We reject the contention of defendant that the court erred in sentencing him as a second felony offender. Defendant waived strict compliance with CPL 400.21 when he admitted the predicate felony and informed the court that he was not challenging the predicate felony statement (see People v Maynard, 294 AD2d 866, lv denied 98 NY2d 699; People v Kennedy, 277 AD2d 814, lv denied 96 NY2d 760; People v Alexander, 98 AD2d 961). Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (Martoche, J.), entered October 16, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree.

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

Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of defendant, [934]*934Supreme Court did not err in requiring that he waive his right to appeal as a condition of the plea agreement despite the People’s failure to seek such a waiver (see People v Vargas, 258 AD2d 350, 350, lv denied 93 NY2d 903; see generally People v Grant, 99 AD2d 536). That waiver encompasses defendant’s challenges to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v Dewitt, 295 AD2d 937, lv denied 98 NY2d 709). We reject the contention of defendant that the court erred in sentencing him as a second felony offender. Defendant waived strict compliance with CPL 400.21 when he admitted the predicate felony and informed the court that he was not challenging the predicate felony statement (see People v Maynard, 294 AD2d 866, lv denied 98 NY2d 699; People v Kennedy, 277 AD2d 814, lv denied 96 NY2d 760; People v Alexander, 98 AD2d 961). Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 933, 753 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-loewel-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack