People v. Mumford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mumford

37 A.D.3d 855, 829 N.Y.S.2d 918

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 855 (People v. Mumford) 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. Mumford, 37 A.D.3d 855, 829 N.Y.S.2d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carroll, J.), rendered October 18, 2004, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]; People v Wright, 34 AD3d 940 [2006]). The defendant’s valid waiver forecloses appellate review of his challenge to the Supreme Court’s suppression determination (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831 [1999]; People v Peoples, 34 AD3d 503 [2006]; People v Campbell, 24 AD3d 463 [2005]). Mastro, J.E, Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carroll, J.), rendered October 18, 2004, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]; People v Wright, 34 AD3d 940 [2006]). The defendant’s valid waiver forecloses appellate review of his challenge to the Supreme Court’s suppression determination (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831 [1999]; People v Peoples, 34 AD3d 503 [2006]; People v Campbell, 24 AD3d 463 [2005]). Mastro, J.E, Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 855, 829 N.Y.S.2d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mumford-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack