People v. Piccollo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Piccollo

303 A.D.2d 768, 757 N.Y.S.2d 442

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 768 (People v. Piccollo) 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. Piccollo, 303 A.D.2d 768, 757 N.Y.S.2d 442 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Ohlig, J.), rendered April 19, 2000, convicting him of attempted burglary in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[769]*769The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was not valid (see People v DeSimone, 80 NY2d 273, 282-283 [1992]). We have examined the defendant’s contention that the sentence was excessive and find it to be without merit (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Ohlig, J.), rendered April 19, 2000, convicting him of attempted burglary in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[769]*769The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was not valid (see People v DeSimone, 80 NY2d 273, 282-283 [1992]). We have examined the defendant’s contention that the sentence was excessive and find it to be without merit (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 768, 757 N.Y.S.2d 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-piccollo-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack