People v. Munger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Munger

117 A.D.3d 1343, 987 N.Y.S.2d 118

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

DecidedMay 29, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.3d 1343 (People v. Munger) 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. Munger, 117 A.D.3d 1343, 987 N.Y.S.2d 118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Peters, EJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, J.), rendered August 20, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. In accordance with the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 2V2 years followed by three years of postrelease supervision, with a recommendation for participation in a shock incarceration program. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Contrary to defendant’s contention, both the written waiver and the plea colloquy informed him that his right to appeal was “ ‘separate and distinct’ ” from those rights automatically forfeited upon pleading guilty and, therefore, we conclude that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence (People v Baliraj, 101 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 941 [2013], quoting People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; see People v Martin, 105 AD3d 1266, 1267 [2013]). Given that his right to appeal was validly waived, we are precluded from reviewing his contention that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive (see People v Newton, 113 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2014]; People v Fling, 112 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2013]).

Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Peters, EJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, J.), rendered August 20, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. In accordance with the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 2V2 years followed by three years of postrelease supervision, with a recommendation for participation in a shock incarceration program. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Contrary to defendant’s contention, both the written waiver and the plea colloquy informed him that his right to appeal was “ ‘separate and distinct’ ” from those rights automatically forfeited upon pleading guilty and, therefore, we conclude that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence (People v Baliraj, 101 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 941 [2013], quoting People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; see People v Martin, 105 AD3d 1266, 1267 [2013]). Given that his right to appeal was validly waived, we are precluded from reviewing his contention that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive (see People v Newton, 113 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2014]; People v Fling, 112 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2013]).

Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 1343, 987 N.Y.S.2d 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-munger-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack