People v. Somoza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Somoza

92 A.D.3d 467, 937 N.Y.2d 850

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.3d 467 (People v. Somoza) 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. Somoza, 92 A.D.3d 467, 937 N.Y.2d 850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]). The court did not conflate the right to appeal with the rights automatically forfeited by pleading guilty. Defendant orally confirmed that he understood he was giving up his right to appeal (compare People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257 [2011]). In addition, the colloquy was supplemented by a written waiver.

Regardless of whether defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we conclude that the hearing court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion.

There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record. Concur— Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Freedman and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

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

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]). The court did not conflate the right to appeal with the rights automatically forfeited by pleading guilty. Defendant orally confirmed that he understood he was giving up his right to appeal (compare People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257 [2011]). In addition, the colloquy was supplemented by a written waiver.

Regardless of whether defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we conclude that the hearing court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion.

There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record. Concur— Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Freedman and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 467, 937 N.Y.2d 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-somoza-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack