People v. Purnell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Purnell

22 A.D.3d 871, 803 N.Y.S.2d 175

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

DecidedOctober 31, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 871 (People v. Purnell) 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. Purnell, 22 A.D.3d 871, 803 N.Y.S.2d 175 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), rendered March 4, 2003, convicting him of failure to register or verify as a felony, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his waiver of the right to appeal was effective (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 [1992]; People v Khan, 201 AD2d 586 [1994]). In addition, by pleading guilty, the defendant waived his claims concerning nonjurisdictional defects in the indictment (see People v DiCarluccio, 168 AD2d 509 [1990]; People v Cox, 275 AD2d 924 [2000]). The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel at sentencing.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Szyjko, 17 AD3d 609 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 795 [ 2005]), or not properly before us (see CPL 470.15 [1]). Adams, J.P., Luciano, Skelos and Lifson, 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 (Weber, J.), rendered March 4, 2003, convicting him of failure to register or verify as a felony, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his waiver of the right to appeal was effective (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 [1992]; People v Khan, 201 AD2d 586 [1994]). In addition, by pleading guilty, the defendant waived his claims concerning nonjurisdictional defects in the indictment (see People v DiCarluccio, 168 AD2d 509 [1990]; People v Cox, 275 AD2d 924 [2000]). The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel at sentencing.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Szyjko, 17 AD3d 609 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 795 [ 2005]), or not properly before us (see CPL 470.15 [1]). Adams, J.P., Luciano, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 871, 803 N.Y.S.2d 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-purnell-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack