People v. McCormick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McCormick

255 A.D.2d 339, 679 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11533

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 339 (People v. McCormick) 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. McCormick, 255 A.D.2d 339, 679 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered January 4, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s plea allocution demonstrated a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal from his judgment of conviction, including the denial of his motion [340]*340to suppress statements he made to law enforcement personnel (see, People v Allen, 82 NY2d 761, 763; People v Woody, 240 AD2d 770). We therefore do not consider the defendant’s contention that the hearing court improperly declined to suppress those statements. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Friedmann, 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, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered January 4, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s plea allocution demonstrated a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal from his judgment of conviction, including the denial of his motion [340]*340to suppress statements he made to law enforcement personnel (see, People v Allen, 82 NY2d 761, 763; People v Woody, 240 AD2d 770). We therefore do not consider the defendant’s contention that the hearing court improperly declined to suppress those statements. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 339, 679 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mccormick-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack