People v. Lorenzana

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lorenzana

46 A.D.3d 705, 846 N.Y.S.2d 590

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

DecidedDecember 11, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.3d 705 (People v. Lorenzana) 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. Lorenzana, 46 A.D.3d 705, 846 N.Y.S.2d 590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ayres, J.), rendered June 28, 2006, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court did not fulfill its promise to impose a term of imprisonment no greater than 15 years when it allegedly failed to consider all the facts and circumstances of this case before imposing a term of imprisonment of 15 years. The record, however, demonstrates that the Supreme Court considered all of the relevant facts and circumstances of this case before imposing sentence (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]; People v Notey, 72 AD2d 279, 282 [1980]).

The defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. Accordingly, the defendant waived appellate review of his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 [1992]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 [1989]). Rivera, J.P., Krausman, Florio, Garni and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ayres, J.), rendered June 28, 2006, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court did not fulfill its promise to impose a term of imprisonment no greater than 15 years when it allegedly failed to consider all the facts and circumstances of this case before imposing a term of imprisonment of 15 years. The record, however, demonstrates that the Supreme Court considered all of the relevant facts and circumstances of this case before imposing sentence (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]; People v Notey, 72 AD2d 279, 282 [1980]).

The defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. Accordingly, the defendant waived appellate review of his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 [1992]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 [1989]). Rivera, J.P., Krausman, Florio, Garni and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 705, 846 N.Y.S.2d 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lorenzana-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack