People v. Nathaniel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nathaniel

205 A.D.2d 560, 614 N.Y.S.2d 267

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

DecidedJune 6, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 560 (People v. Nathaniel) 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. Nathaniel, 205 A.D.2d 560, 614 N.Y.S.2d 267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings [561]*561County (Egitto, J.), rendered September 11, 1991, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In view of the defendant’s failure to demonstrate good cause for the relief which he sought, we conclude that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to have new counsel assigned (see, People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18; People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199, 207).

The defendant’s contention that the sentence was excessive was expressly waived by the waiver of appeal rights which he executed as part of the plea agreement (see, People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, 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 [561]*561County (Egitto, J.), rendered September 11, 1991, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In view of the defendant’s failure to demonstrate good cause for the relief which he sought, we conclude that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to have new counsel assigned (see, People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18; People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199, 207).

The defendant’s contention that the sentence was excessive was expressly waived by the waiver of appeal rights which he executed as part of the plea agreement (see, People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 560, 614 N.Y.S.2d 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nathaniel-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack