People v. McLemore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McLemore

303 A.D.2d 950, 755 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2904

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 950 (People v. McLemore) 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. McLemore, 303 A.D.2d 950, 755 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Orleans County Court (Punch, J.), entered August 7, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the first degree.

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

Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court “fully apprised him of his right to appeal and the consequences of his waiver of that right, which defendant indicated that he understood” (People v Raquel, 238 AD2d 766, 767 [1997]). Defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal therefore is valid (see People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911 [1990]), and that waiver encompasses defendant’s double jeopardy claim (see People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570, 574 [1998]). Present— Pigott, Jr., P.J., Wisner, Scudder, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Orleans County Court (Punch, J.), entered August 7, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the first degree.

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

Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court “fully apprised him of his right to appeal and the consequences of his waiver of that right, which defendant indicated that he understood” (People v Raquel, 238 AD2d 766, 767 [1997]). Defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal therefore is valid (see People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911 [1990]), and that waiver encompasses defendant’s double jeopardy claim (see People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570, 574 [1998]). Present— Pigott, Jr., P.J., Wisner, Scudder, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 950, 755 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mclemore-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack