Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/People v. Middleton

People v. Middleton

277 A.D.2d 398, 716 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12106
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 20, 2000
StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 398 (People v. Middleton) 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. Middleton, 277 A.D.2d 398, 716 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12106 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Wong, J.), imposed October 4, 1999, on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The record fails to establish that the defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 283; People v McCaskell, 206 AD2d 547). Accordingly, he is not foreclosed from obtaining appellate review of his sentence. We conclude that the [399]*399sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Thompson, Krausman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Callahan
80 N.Y.2d 273 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
People v. McCaskell
206 A.D.2d 547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
277 A.D.2d 398, 716 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-middleton-nyappdiv-2000.