People v. Remington

90 A.D.3d 678, 933 N.Y.2d 891
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 6, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 678 (People v. Remington) 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. Remington, 90 A.D.3d 678, 933 N.Y.2d 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

[679]*679The defendant is correct that his waiver of the right to appeal is unenforceable since the court failed to elicit a specific acknowledgment from him that he was waiving his right to appeal, as distinguished from his automatic forfeit of other trial rights, by pleading guilty (see People v Moyett, 7 NY3d 892, 893 [2006]; People v Foster, 87 AD3d 299, 303 [2011]). However, the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence of imprisonment that was eventually imposed, and, thus, has no basis to now contend that his sentence of imprisonment was excessive (see People v Gibson, 88 AD3d 1012, 1012 [2011]; People v Gantt, 85 AD3d 815, 816 [2011]; People v Tate, 84 AD3d 1416, 1417 [2011]; People v Bunn, 79 AD3d 1143, 1143-1144 [2010]).

The defendant failed to preserve his argument that the duration of the order of protection issued at the time of sentencing exceeded the maximum time period pursuant to CPL 530.12 (5) (ii), since he neither raised this issue at sentencing nor moved to amend the final order of protection on this ground (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 316-318 [2004]; People v Foster, 87 AD3d at 304; People v Maxineau, 78 AD3d 732, 732 [2010] ; People v Langhorne, 60 AD3d 867 [2009]). We decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review this contention (see People v Maxineau, 78 AD3d at 732; People v Langhorne, 60 AD3d at 867). Mastro, A.RJ., Chambers, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Birth (James)
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018
People v. Black
2016 NY Slip Op 7670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Guarchaj
122 A.D.3d 878 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Deal
115 A.D.3d 975 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Smith
112 A.D.3d 759 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Cedeno
107 A.D.3d 734 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Sweeney
106 A.D.3d 841 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Barrett
105 A.D.3d 862 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Khan
101 A.D.3d 903 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Pelaez
100 A.D.3d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Jacob
94 A.D.3d 1142 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 A.D.3d 678, 933 N.Y.2d 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-remington-nyappdiv-2011.