People v. Salerno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Salerno

269 A.D.2d 830, 703 N.Y.S.2d 787, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1759

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 830 (People v. Salerno) 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. Salerno, 269 A.D.2d 830, 703 N.Y.S.2d 787, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1759 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]). The record establishes that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was voluntary, knowing and intelligent (see, People v DeJesus, 248 AD2d 1023, lv denied 92 NY2d 879). Contrary to defendant’s contention, that waiver is enforceable even in the absence of a sentence promise (see, People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737; People v Frank, 258 AD2d 900, lv denied 93 NY2d 924). The only contention of defendant not encompassed by the waiver concerns whether County Court properly accepted the plea after defendant indicated that he was coerced into committing the crime (see, People v DeJesus, supra; see also, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666). Defendant did not state, however, that he was coerced “by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force” (Penal Law § 40.00 [1]), and thus he did not have a viable duress defense (see, People v Lopez, supra, at 666-667). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J. — Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present — Wisner, J. P., Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]). The record establishes that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was voluntary, knowing and intelligent (see, People v DeJesus, 248 AD2d 1023, lv denied 92 NY2d 879). Contrary to defendant’s contention, that waiver is enforceable even in the absence of a sentence promise (see, People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737; People v Frank, 258 AD2d 900, lv denied 93 NY2d 924). The only contention of defendant not encompassed by the waiver concerns whether County Court properly accepted the plea after defendant indicated that he was coerced into committing the crime (see, People v DeJesus, supra; see also, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666). Defendant did not state, however, that he was coerced “by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force” (Penal Law § 40.00 [1]), and thus he did not have a viable duress defense (see, People v Lopez, supra, at 666-667). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J. — Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present — Wisner, J. P., Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 830, 703 N.Y.S.2d 787, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-salerno-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack