People v. Marling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marling

2017 NY Slip Op 5387, 151 A.D.3d 1963, 54 N.Y.S.3d 908

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

DecidedJune 30, 2017

Docket925 KA 15-01966

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5387 (People v. Marling) 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. Marling, 2017 NY Slip Op 5387, 151 A.D.3d 1963, 54 N.Y.S.3d 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a *1964 judgment of the Orleans County Court (James P. Punch, J.), rendered November 9, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and we conclude that the valid waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).

Present — Peradotto, J.P., Garni, Lindley, Curran and Troutman, JJ.

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

Appeal from a *1964 judgment of the Orleans County Court (James P. Punch, J.), rendered November 9, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and we conclude that the valid waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).

Present — Peradotto, J.P., Garni, Lindley, Curran and Troutman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5387, 151 A.D.3d 1963, 54 N.Y.S.3d 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marling-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack