People v. Walden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Walden

256 A.D.2d 1183, 682 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14328

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1183 (People v. Walden) 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. Walden, 256 A.D.2d 1183, 682 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was given a meaningful opportunity at sentencing to move to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, People v Chandler, 214 AD2d 1027, 1028, lv denied 86 NY2d 792). Because he failed to make such a motion or to make a postverdict motion to vacate the judgment of conviction, his contention that County Court erred in not allowing him to withdraw his plea is not preserved for our review (see, People v Stedge, 250 AD2d 880). Defendant’s “unrestricted waiver of the right to appeal * * * encompassed [the] right to review of the sentence as harsh and excessive” (People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 734). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, DiTullio, J. — Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present— Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was given a meaningful opportunity at sentencing to move to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, People v Chandler, 214 AD2d 1027, 1028, lv denied 86 NY2d 792). Because he failed to make such a motion or to make a postverdict motion to vacate the judgment of conviction, his contention that County Court erred in not allowing him to withdraw his plea is not preserved for our review (see, People v Stedge, 250 AD2d 880). Defendant’s “unrestricted waiver of the right to appeal * * * encompassed [the] right to review of the sentence as harsh and excessive” (People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 734). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, DiTullio, J. — Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present— Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1183, 682 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-walden-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack