People v. McArthur

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McArthur

149 A.D.3d 1568, 52 N.Y.S.3d 600

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

DecidedApril 28, 2017

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D.3d 1568 (People v. McArthur) 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. McArthur, 149 A.D.3d 1568, 52 N.Y.S.3d 600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), rendered March 18, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal mischief 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 criminal mischief in the third degree (Penal Law § 145.05 [2]). Defendant’s challenge to the severity of his sentence is encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal. Although no mention was made on the record during the plea colloquy that defendant was waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence (see People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]), here the oral waiver was accompanied by a written plea agreement that provided that defendant was waiving his right to ap[1569]*1569peal his “conviction, sentence, and any proceedings that may result from this prosecution.” Moreover, County Court conducted an extensive inquiry that established that defendant had reviewed and understood the written plea agreement, including its waiver-of-appeal provision, had discussed it with his lawyer, and had agreed to its terms, and defendant signed the document in open court during the course of the plea colloquy (see People v Bryant, 28 NY3d 1094, 1096 [2016]; People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; cf. People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-267 [2011]). Therefore, defendant may not challenge the severity of the sentence.

Present — Smith, J.P., Carni, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Troutman, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), rendered March 18, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal mischief 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 criminal mischief in the third degree (Penal Law § 145.05 [2]). Defendant’s challenge to the severity of his sentence is encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal. Although no mention was made on the record during the plea colloquy that defendant was waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence (see People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]), here the oral waiver was accompanied by a written plea agreement that provided that defendant was waiving his right to ap[1569]*1569peal his “conviction, sentence, and any proceedings that may result from this prosecution.” Moreover, County Court conducted an extensive inquiry that established that defendant had reviewed and understood the written plea agreement, including its waiver-of-appeal provision, had discussed it with his lawyer, and had agreed to its terms, and defendant signed the document in open court during the course of the plea colloquy (see People v Bryant, 28 NY3d 1094, 1096 [2016]; People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; cf. People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-267 [2011]). Therefore, defendant may not challenge the severity of the sentence.

Present — Smith, J.P., Carni, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Troutman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.3d 1568, 52 N.Y.S.3d 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcarthur-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack