People v. Quezada

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Quezada

39 A.D.3d 400, 832 N.Y.S.2d 803

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

DecidedApril 24, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 400 (People v. Quezada) 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. Quezada, 39 A.D.3d 400, 832 N.Y.S.2d 803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J., at hearing; Micki A. Scherer, J., at plea and sentence), rendered June 23, 2004, convicting defendant of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 7 to 21 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made valid written and oral waivers of his right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]), which foreclose his suppression and excessive sentence claims. The court did not conflate the right to appeal with the rights automatically forfeited by pleading guilty. In any event, were we to find that defendant did not make a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we would find that the court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion and that there is no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J., at hearing; Micki A. Scherer, J., at plea and sentence), rendered June 23, 2004, convicting defendant of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 7 to 21 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made valid written and oral waivers of his right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]), which foreclose his suppression and excessive sentence claims. The court did not conflate the right to appeal with the rights automatically forfeited by pleading guilty. In any event, were we to find that defendant did not make a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we would find that the court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion and that there is no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 400, 832 N.Y.S.2d 803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-quezada-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack