People v. Morel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Morel

4 A.D.3d 254, 771 N.Y.S.2d 654

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.3d 254 (People v. Morel) 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. Morel, 4 A.D.3d 254, 771 N.Y.S.2d 654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J), rendered February 20, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

After a jury convicted defendant of third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance but failed to reach a verdict on the charge of first-degree possession, defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal from his conviction as part of an agreement with the People whereby the first-degree possession count was dismissed. This waiver was without limitation, and it applies to all the issues defendant now raises on appeal (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733 [1998]). In any event, were we to find that defendant did not make a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we would find each of his claims to be unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P, Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J), rendered February 20, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

After a jury convicted defendant of third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance but failed to reach a verdict on the charge of first-degree possession, defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal from his conviction as part of an agreement with the People whereby the first-degree possession count was dismissed. This waiver was without limitation, and it applies to all the issues defendant now raises on appeal (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733 [1998]). In any event, were we to find that defendant did not make a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we would find each of his claims to be unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P, Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 254, 771 N.Y.S.2d 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-morel-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack