People v. Spagnola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Spagnola

245 A.D.2d 318, 667 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12053

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 318 (People v. Spagnola) 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. Spagnola, 245 A.D.2d 318, 667 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12053 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered June 4, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence as part of his negotiated plea of guilty (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273). Thus, the defendant is precluded from claiming, inter alia, that tbe sentence imposed by the court was excessive (see, People v Callahan, supra; People v Hayes, 229 AD2d 596; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered June 4, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence as part of his negotiated plea of guilty (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273). Thus, the defendant is precluded from claiming, inter alia, that tbe sentence imposed by the court was excessive (see, People v Callahan, supra; People v Hayes, 229 AD2d 596; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 318, 667 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-spagnola-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack