People v. Torovillota

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Torovillota

96 A.D.3d 787, 945 N.Y.S.2d 567

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

DecidedJune 6, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 96 A.D.3d 787 (People v. Torovillota) 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. Torovillota, 96 A.D.3d 787, 945 N.Y.S.2d 567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), rendered February 7, 2011, convicting him of offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

[788]*788Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]; People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570 [1998]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 [1992]). The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his challenges to the procedures the Supreme Court utilized in sentencing him (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d at 281; People v Arrington, 94 AD3d 903 [2012]; People v Collier, 71 AD3d 909, 910 [2010]; People v Redcross, 13 AD3d 559 [2004]; People v Hicks, 201 AD2d 831, 832 [1994]). Rivera, J.P., Eng, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, 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 Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), rendered February 7, 2011, convicting him of offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

[788]*788Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]; People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570 [1998]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 [1992]). The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his challenges to the procedures the Supreme Court utilized in sentencing him (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d at 281; People v Arrington, 94 AD3d 903 [2012]; People v Collier, 71 AD3d 909, 910 [2010]; People v Redcross, 13 AD3d 559 [2004]; People v Hicks, 201 AD2d 831, 832 [1994]). Rivera, J.P., Eng, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 787, 945 N.Y.S.2d 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-torovillota-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack