People v. Mercedes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mercedes

292 A.D.2d 863, 739 N.Y.S.2d 329

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 863 (People v. Mercedes) 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. Mercedes, 292 A.D.2d 863, 739 N.Y.S.2d 329 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of Oswego County Court (Hafher, Jr., J.), entered December 17, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25) and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 4 to 8 years. The contention of defendant that his plea was not voluntarily entered survives his waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v DeJesus, 248 AD2d 1023, lv denied 92 NY2d 878), and he preserved that contention for our review by moving to withdraw the plea (cf., People v DeJesus, supra). We conclude, however, that defendant’s contention is without merit. The record reflects that defendant “ ‘knew and understood the terms’ ” of the plea bargain (People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 912). The further contention of defendant that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe is encompassed by his waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827) and, in any event, that contention is without merit. Present — Green, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, 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 Oswego County Court (Hafher, Jr., J.), entered December 17, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25) and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 4 to 8 years. The contention of defendant that his plea was not voluntarily entered survives his waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v DeJesus, 248 AD2d 1023, lv denied 92 NY2d 878), and he preserved that contention for our review by moving to withdraw the plea (cf., People v DeJesus, supra). We conclude, however, that defendant’s contention is without merit. The record reflects that defendant “ ‘knew and understood the terms’ ” of the plea bargain (People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 912). The further contention of defendant that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe is encompassed by his waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827) and, in any event, that contention is without merit. Present — Green, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 863, 739 N.Y.S.2d 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mercedes-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack