People v. Muro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Muro

208 A.D.2d 654, 618 N.Y.S.2d 229

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 654 (People v. Muro) 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. Muro, 208 A.D.2d 654, 618 N.Y.S.2d 229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), imposed October 28, 1993.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal both his plea and his sentence as an integral part of an extremely advantageous plea agreement. Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed (see, People v Allen, 82 NY2d 761; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273; People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1).

In any event, there is no merit to the defendant’s contention that his sentence is cruel and unusual because he was in poor health at the time of the plea agreement (see, People v Thompson, 83 NY2d 477) and because he had entered into a stipulation of settlement that he considered disadvantageous in a Federal civil forfeiture proceeding. We note that the County Court gave the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea before imposing sentence, but the defendant rejected the offer. Moreover, the sentence that was imposed is the one for which the defendant had bargained (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). The defendant does not contend that he has been denied adequate medical care in prison or that "prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs” (People ex rel. Kalikow v Scully, 198 AD2d 250). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), imposed October 28, 1993.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal both his plea and his sentence as an integral part of an extremely advantageous plea agreement. Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed (see, People v Allen, 82 NY2d 761; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273; People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1).

In any event, there is no merit to the defendant’s contention that his sentence is cruel and unusual because he was in poor health at the time of the plea agreement (see, People v Thompson, 83 NY2d 477) and because he had entered into a stipulation of settlement that he considered disadvantageous in a Federal civil forfeiture proceeding. We note that the County Court gave the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea before imposing sentence, but the defendant rejected the offer. Moreover, the sentence that was imposed is the one for which the defendant had bargained (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). The defendant does not contend that he has been denied adequate medical care in prison or that "prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs” (People ex rel. Kalikow v Scully, 198 AD2d 250). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 654, 618 N.Y.S.2d 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-muro-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack