People v. Romero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Romero

188 A.D.2d 440, 592 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14751

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.D.2d 440 (People v. Romero) 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. Romero, 188 A.D.2d 440, 592 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.), rendered May 17, 1990, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree and assault in the first degree, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 7 to 21 years and 5 to 15 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The record indicates that defendant entered into a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea bargain (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17), including the knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of her right to appeal (see, People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10-11). A full hearing prior to sentencing disclosed that defendant failed to comply with the terms of an additional [441]*441agreement that would allow the sentencing court, in its discretion, to consider a further reduction of the sentence promised, and imposed, in connection with the plea bargain. Thus, there is no merit to defendant’s claim that she was deprived of the benefit of her plea bargain, nor any evidence that the sentencing court abused its discretion in declining to further reduce the promised sentence (see, People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302).

Defendant’s additional claims of error are unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law by operation of defendant’s effective waiver of appeal (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273). Were we to review them in the interest of justice, we would find them to be meritless. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.), rendered May 17, 1990, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree and assault in the first degree, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 7 to 21 years and 5 to 15 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The record indicates that defendant entered into a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea bargain (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17), including the knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of her right to appeal (see, People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10-11). A full hearing prior to sentencing disclosed that defendant failed to comply with the terms of an additional [441]*441agreement that would allow the sentencing court, in its discretion, to consider a further reduction of the sentence promised, and imposed, in connection with the plea bargain. Thus, there is no merit to defendant’s claim that she was deprived of the benefit of her plea bargain, nor any evidence that the sentencing court abused its discretion in declining to further reduce the promised sentence (see, People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302).

Defendant’s additional claims of error are unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law by operation of defendant’s effective waiver of appeal (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273). Were we to review them in the interest of justice, we would find them to be meritless. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 440, 592 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-romero-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack