People v. Soulsby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Soulsby

266 A.D.2d 830, 699 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11830

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 830 (People v. Soulsby) 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. Soulsby, 266 A.D.2d 830, 699 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal [831]*831forecloses our review of defendant’s contention concerning the severity of the sentence (see, People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 736; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11). Contrary to the contention of defendant, he was properly sentenced as a second felony offender (see, Penal Law § 70.06 [1] [b]). Furthermore, contrary to the contention raised by defendant in his pro se supplemental brief, the waiver of the right to appeal encompassed the contention that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel (cf., People v Ferguson, 192 AD2d 800, lv denied 82 NY2d 717), and, in any event, that contention is without merit (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J. — Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present— Denman, P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal [831]*831forecloses our review of defendant’s contention concerning the severity of the sentence (see, People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 736; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11). Contrary to the contention of defendant, he was properly sentenced as a second felony offender (see, Penal Law § 70.06 [1] [b]). Furthermore, contrary to the contention raised by defendant in his pro se supplemental brief, the waiver of the right to appeal encompassed the contention that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel (cf., People v Ferguson, 192 AD2d 800, lv denied 82 NY2d 717), and, in any event, that contention is without merit (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J. — Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present— Denman, P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 830, 699 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-soulsby-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack