People v. Meeks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Meeks

270 A.D.2d 859, 713 N.Y.S.2d 707, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3500

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 859 (People v. Meeks) 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. Meeks, 270 A.D.2d 859, 713 N.Y.S.2d 707, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3500 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The record establishes that defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see, People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909; People v Saunders, 190 AD2d 1092, 1093, lv denied 81 NY2d 1019). That waiver precludes our review of the denial of defendant’s suppression motion (see, People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831; People v Vaccaro, 206 AD2d 952, 953, lv denied 84 NY2d 940). Defendant concedes that his initial sentence was illegal but contends that County Court erred in resentencing him without affording him the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant was initially sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years to run concurrently with an undischarged term of imprisonment and, upon resentencing, the court directed that the seven-year term run consecutive to the undischarged term. By failing to object to his resentencing or to move at resentencing to withdraw his guilty plea, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Ellis, 162 AD2d 701, lv denied 76 NY2d 892; see also, People v Breckner, 215 AD2d 229, lv denied 86 NY2d 791), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, DiTullio, J.— Attempted Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The record establishes that defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see, People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909; People v Saunders, 190 AD2d 1092, 1093, lv denied 81 NY2d 1019). That waiver precludes our review of the denial of defendant’s suppression motion (see, People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831; People v Vaccaro, 206 AD2d 952, 953, lv denied 84 NY2d 940). Defendant concedes that his initial sentence was illegal but contends that County Court erred in resentencing him without affording him the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant was initially sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years to run concurrently with an undischarged term of imprisonment and, upon resentencing, the court directed that the seven-year term run consecutive to the undischarged term. By failing to object to his resentencing or to move at resentencing to withdraw his guilty plea, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Ellis, 162 AD2d 701, lv denied 76 NY2d 892; see also, People v Breckner, 215 AD2d 229, lv denied 86 NY2d 791), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, DiTullio, J.— Attempted Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 859, 713 N.Y.S.2d 707, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-meeks-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack