People v. Roca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Roca

46 A.D.3d 1396, 847 N.Y.S.2d 873

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.3d 1396 (People v. Roca) 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. Roca, 46 A.D.3d 1396, 847 N.Y.S.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.), rendered October 25, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that he voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]). That valid waiver encompasses defendant’s challenge to County Court’s suppression ruling (see Kemp, 94 NY2d at 833; People v Conway, 43 AD3d 635 [2007]; People v Gordon, 42 AD3d 964 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 876 [2007]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Gorski, Lunn, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.), rendered October 25, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that he voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]). That valid waiver encompasses defendant’s challenge to County Court’s suppression ruling (see Kemp, 94 NY2d at 833; People v Conway, 43 AD3d 635 [2007]; People v Gordon, 42 AD3d 964 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 876 [2007]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Gorski, Lunn, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 1396, 847 N.Y.S.2d 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roca-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack