People v. Macklin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Macklin

49 A.D.3d 1299, 852 N.Y.2d 863

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

DecidedMarch 14, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 1299 (People v. Macklin) 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. Macklin, 49 A.D.3d 1299, 852 N.Y.2d 863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [4]). Defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because, in view of his age and lack of prior criminal history, County Court should have engaged in a more detailed colloquy. We reject that contention. The record establishes that defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and the valid waiver encompasses defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence (see id.). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court should have afforded him youthful offender status (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, that contention is encompassed by defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Williams, 37 AD3d 1193 [2007]). Present— Martoche, J.P., Smith, Peradotto, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [4]). Defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because, in view of his age and lack of prior criminal history, County Court should have engaged in a more detailed colloquy. We reject that contention. The record establishes that defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and the valid waiver encompasses defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence (see id.). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court should have afforded him youthful offender status (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, that contention is encompassed by defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Williams, 37 AD3d 1193 [2007]). Present— Martoche, J.P., Smith, Peradotto, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 1299, 852 N.Y.2d 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-macklin-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack