People v. Mays

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mays

10 A.D.3d 556, 781 N.Y.S.2d 740, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11000

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.3d 556 (People v. Mays) 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. Mays, 10 A.D.3d 556, 781 N.Y.S.2d 740, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered June 15, 2001, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

[557]*557The record establishes that, after consultation with counsel, defendant executed a valid written waiver of his right to appeal (People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909 [1990]). Accordingly, review of defendant’s suppression motion is foreclosed. In any event, were we to find that defendant’s waiver was invalid, we would find that the court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ. [See 190 Misc 2d 310.]

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered June 15, 2001, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

[557]*557The record establishes that, after consultation with counsel, defendant executed a valid written waiver of his right to appeal (People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909 [1990]). Accordingly, review of defendant’s suppression motion is foreclosed. In any event, were we to find that defendant’s waiver was invalid, we would find that the court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ. [See 190 Misc 2d 310.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 556, 781 N.Y.S.2d 740, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mays-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack