People v. Piparo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Piparo

256 A.D.2d 91, 680 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13244

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 91 (People v. Piparo) 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. Piparo, 256 A.D.2d 91, 680 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme [92]*92Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J., at plea; Harold Silverman, J., at sentence), rendered March 22, 1996, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of robbery in the first degree (seven counts), and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 9 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The record establishes that defendant waived his right to appeal as a condition of the plea bargain (see, People v Aponte, 212 AD2d 157). Accordingly, review of defendant’s challenge to his sentence on the ground of excessiveness is foreclosed (People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733). Moreover, were we to review the issue, we would find that the sentence is in no way excessive. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme [92]*92Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J., at plea; Harold Silverman, J., at sentence), rendered March 22, 1996, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of robbery in the first degree (seven counts), and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 9 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The record establishes that defendant waived his right to appeal as a condition of the plea bargain (see, People v Aponte, 212 AD2d 157). Accordingly, review of defendant’s challenge to his sentence on the ground of excessiveness is foreclosed (People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733). Moreover, were we to review the issue, we would find that the sentence is in no way excessive. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 91, 680 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-piparo-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack