People v. Nunez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nunez

25 A.D.3d 376, 806 N.Y.S.2d 870

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 A.D.3d 376 (People v. Nunez) 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. Nunez, 25 A.D.3d 376, 806 N.Y.S.2d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar D. Cirigliano, J.), rendered May 11, 2001, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The court’s response during the plea allocution to a question from defendant about deportation consequences was not inconsistent with the pertinent provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC § 1226 [c]; § 1227 [a] [2] [A] [iii]). Similarly, counsel was not ineffective for failing to address the [377]*377court’s purported misstatement (compare People v McDonald, 1 NY3d 109 [2003]).

Defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses review of the court’s suppression ruling. Were we to find that defendant did not make a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we would reject his suppression argument. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar D. Cirigliano, J.), rendered May 11, 2001, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The court’s response during the plea allocution to a question from defendant about deportation consequences was not inconsistent with the pertinent provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC § 1226 [c]; § 1227 [a] [2] [A] [iii]). Similarly, counsel was not ineffective for failing to address the [377]*377court’s purported misstatement (compare People v McDonald, 1 NY3d 109 [2003]).

Defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses review of the court’s suppression ruling. Were we to find that defendant did not make a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we would reject his suppression argument. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 376, 806 N.Y.S.2d 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nunez-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack