People v. Tanner

2019 NY Slip Op 1433
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 27, 2019
DocketInd. No. 6550/13
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 1433 (People v. Tanner) 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. Tanner, 2019 NY Slip Op 1433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

People v Tanner (2019 NY Slip Op 01433)
People v Tanner
2019 NY Slip Op 01433
Decided on February 27, 2019
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 27, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY
LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

2015-06807
(Ind. No. 6550/13)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

George Tanner, appellant.


Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Patricia Pazner of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Sholom J. Twersky of counsel; Kyle Knox on the brief), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Suzanne M. Mondo, J.) rendered June 30, 2015, convicting him of criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts), 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 (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256; People v Fortier, 130 AD3d 642, 642). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of the denial of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to controvert a search warrant and suppress certain physical evidence seized in the execution thereof (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833; People v Turner, 160 AD3d 993; People v Corbin, 121 AD3d 803), and his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733).

AUSTIN, J.P., MALTESE, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Hidalgo
698 N.E.2d 46 (New York Court of Appeals, 1998)
People v. Kemp
724 N.E.2d 754 (New York Court of Appeals, 1999)
People v. Lopez
844 N.E.2d 1145 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Corbin
121 A.D.3d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
The People v. Rasaun Sanders
34 N.E.3d 344 (New York Court of Appeals, 2015)
People v. Fortier
130 A.D.3d 642 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 1433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tanner-nyappdiv-2019.