People v. Rodriguez

106 A.D.3d 1444, 964 N.Y.S.2d 436
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Rodriguez. Read the opinion of the Court — 77 A.D.3d 280

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael F. Pietruszka, J.), rendered August 26, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence (see id. at 255; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]).

We have considered defendant’s contentions in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit. Present — Scudder, EJ., Peradotto, Garni, Whalen and Martoche, JJ.

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

People v. Rodriguez, 106 A.D.3d 1444, 964 N.Y.S.2d 436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

106 A.D.3d 1444 (People v. Rodriguez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Lococo
699 N.E.2d 416 (New York Court of Appeals, 1998)
People v. Hidalgo
698 N.E.2d 46 (New York Court of Appeals, 1998)
People v. Lopez
844 N.E.2d 1145 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)