People v. Sears

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sears

57 A.D.3d 396, 870 N.Y.2d 16

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

DecidedDecember 23, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.3d 396 (People v. Sears) 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. Sears, 57 A.D.3d 396, 870 N.Y.2d 16 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The record establishes that defendant made a valid general waiver of his right to appeal that encompassed his suppression claims (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831 [1999]). Defendant signed a written waiver in which he agreed to waive appellate review of all possible issues, except for a list of four constitutional issues corresponding to the issues deemed nonwaivable in People v Seaberg (74 NY2d 1 [1989]). At the plea proceeding, defense counsel informed the court that he had explained the written waiver to his client, and defendant acknowledged that he understood it. Under these circumstances, we conclude that [397]*397the insertion of language in the document highlighting the fact that the waiver would include any excessive sentence claim did not create any ambiguity as to whether the waiver also included suppression claims. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, McGuire, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

The record establishes that defendant made a valid general waiver of his right to appeal that encompassed his suppression claims (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831 [1999]). Defendant signed a written waiver in which he agreed to waive appellate review of all possible issues, except for a list of four constitutional issues corresponding to the issues deemed nonwaivable in People v Seaberg (74 NY2d 1 [1989]). At the plea proceeding, defense counsel informed the court that he had explained the written waiver to his client, and defendant acknowledged that he understood it. Under these circumstances, we conclude that [397]*397the insertion of language in the document highlighting the fact that the waiver would include any excessive sentence claim did not create any ambiguity as to whether the waiver also included suppression claims. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, McGuire, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 396, 870 N.Y.2d 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sears-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack