People v. Rincon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rincon

209 A.D.2d 450, 619 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10995

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 450 (People v. Rincon) 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. Rincon, 209 A.D.2d 450, 619 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10995 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered July 15, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony, physical evidence, and statements made by him.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, including his right to challenge the court’s suppression rulings (see, People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1; People v Rodriguez, 180 AD2d 654; People v Crum, 175 AD2d 136). In any event, the court’s suppression rulings were entirely proper. Moreover, the defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Goldstein, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered July 15, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony, physical evidence, and statements made by him.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, including his right to challenge the court’s suppression rulings (see, People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1; People v Rodriguez, 180 AD2d 654; People v Crum, 175 AD2d 136). In any event, the court’s suppression rulings were entirely proper. Moreover, the defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 450, 619 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rincon-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack