People v. Rasuk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rasuk

56 A.D.2d 336, 868 N.Y.S.2d 618

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 336 (People v. Rasuk) 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. Rasuk, 56 A.D.2d 336, 868 N.Y.S.2d 618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Lee Price, J.), rendered October 18, 2007, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of crim[337]*337inal possession of a weapon in the third degree and leaving the scene of an incident without reporting, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of six months, with five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

At least when taken together, defendant’s written and oral waivers establish that he made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]). That waiver forecloses review, including interest of justice review, of his suppression claims. We note as well that defendant’s counsel expressly stated that defendant was withdrawing “any and all . . . decision^] that may be pending.” As an alternative holding, we also reject defendant’s suppression claims on the merits. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Buckley, McGuire and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

— Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Lee Price, J.), rendered October 18, 2007, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of crim[337]*337inal possession of a weapon in the third degree and leaving the scene of an incident without reporting, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of six months, with five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

At least when taken together, defendant’s written and oral waivers establish that he made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]). That waiver forecloses review, including interest of justice review, of his suppression claims. We note as well that defendant’s counsel expressly stated that defendant was withdrawing “any and all . . . decision^] that may be pending.” As an alternative holding, we also reject defendant’s suppression claims on the merits. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Buckley, McGuire and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 336, 868 N.Y.S.2d 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rasuk-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack