People v. Veaudry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Veaudry

133 A.D.2d 524, 519 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50001

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 133 A.D.2d 524 (People v. Veaudry) 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. Veaudry, 133 A.D.2d 524, 519 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50001 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: After executing a waiver of indictment, defendant entered a guilty plea to a superior court information which charged him with attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The waiver contained a provision that defendant waived his right to appeal from any judgment of conviction under the superior court information.

Defendant contends that the waiver of his right to appeal is ineffective because it was not knowingly and voluntarily made. We agree. Waiver is the intentional and voluntary relinquishment of a known right and knowledge and intent are essential elements (People v Cox, 71 AD2d 798). The record fails to disclose any inquiry by the court from which we could determine that the defendant knowingly waived his right to appeal.

Defendant further contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. We conclude, however, that the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, when viewed in their totality at the time of the representation, reveal that defendant’s attorney provided meaningful representation (People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799; People v Lane, 60 NY2d 748, 750; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. —attempted criminal possession of weapon, third degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: After executing a waiver of indictment, defendant entered a guilty plea to a superior court information which charged him with attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The waiver contained a provision that defendant waived his right to appeal from any judgment of conviction under the superior court information.

Defendant contends that the waiver of his right to appeal is ineffective because it was not knowingly and voluntarily made. We agree. Waiver is the intentional and voluntary relinquishment of a known right and knowledge and intent are essential elements (People v Cox, 71 AD2d 798). The record fails to disclose any inquiry by the court from which we could determine that the defendant knowingly waived his right to appeal.

Defendant further contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. We conclude, however, that the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, when viewed in their totality at the time of the representation, reveal that defendant’s attorney provided meaningful representation (People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799; People v Lane, 60 NY2d 748, 750; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. —attempted criminal possession of weapon, third degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 524, 519 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-veaudry-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack