People v. Sledge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sledge

195 A.D.2d 713, 601 N.Y.S.2d 872, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7098

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 8, 1993·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County (Aison, J.), rendered April 28, 1992, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

Defendant argues that his waiver of his right to appeal as a part of his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive. Our review of the record reveals a sufficient colloquy between defendant and County Court to establish a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver so that, in the absence of any other facts calling into doubt the validity of the plea (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662), we conclude that the waiver of the right [714] to appeal must be enforced. Were we to reach the merits of defendant’s argument that the sentence is harsh and excessive we would find, given that defendant entered the plea to a class C felony to avoid indictment for a class A-l felony and knew that he would probably receive the sentence ultimately imposed, that there is no basis to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court (see, People v Mackey, 136 AD2d 780, lv denied 71 NY2d 899).

Weiss, P. J., Mercure, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County (Aison, J.), rendered April 28, 1992, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

Defendant argues that his waiver of his right to appeal as a part of his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive. Our review of the record reveals a sufficient colloquy between defendant and County Court to establish a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver so that, in the absence of any other facts calling into doubt the validity of the plea (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662), we conclude that the waiver of the right [714] to appeal must be enforced. Were we to reach the merits of defendant’s argument that the sentence is harsh and excessive we would find, given that defendant entered the plea to a class C felony to avoid indictment for a class A-l felony and knew that he would probably receive the sentence ultimately imposed, that there is no basis to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court (see, People v Mackey, 136 AD2d 780, lv denied 71 NY2d 899).

Weiss, P. J., Mercure, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

People v. Sledge, 195 A.D.2d 713, 601 N.Y.S.2d 872, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7098 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

195 A.D.2d 713 (People v. Sledge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related