People v. Weems

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Weems

141 A.D.3d 1119, 33 N.Y.S.3d 919

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

DecidedJuly 1, 2016

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 141 A.D.3d 1119 (People v. Weems) 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. Weems, 141 A.D.3d 1119, 33 N.Y.S.3d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (James J. Piampiano, J.), rendered February 14, 2013. The judgment [1120]*1120convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]) and, in appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of rape in the first degree (§ 130.35 [1]). Defendant pleaded guilty to the crimes in one plea proceeding. We reject defendant’s contention in both appeals that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. County Court “ ‘made clear that the waiver of the right to appeal was a condition of [the] plea, not a consequence thereof, and the record reflects that defendant understood that the waiver of the right to appeal was separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty’ ” (People v Graham, 77 AD3d 1439, 1439 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 920 [2010], quoting People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). The valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses defendant’s further contention in both appeals that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe (see generally Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256).

Present — Centra, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Troutman, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (James J. Piampiano, J.), rendered February 14, 2013. The judgment [1120]*1120convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]) and, in appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of rape in the first degree (§ 130.35 [1]). Defendant pleaded guilty to the crimes in one plea proceeding. We reject defendant’s contention in both appeals that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. County Court “ ‘made clear that the waiver of the right to appeal was a condition of [the] plea, not a consequence thereof, and the record reflects that defendant understood that the waiver of the right to appeal was separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty’ ” (People v Graham, 77 AD3d 1439, 1439 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 920 [2010], quoting People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). The valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses defendant’s further contention in both appeals that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe (see generally Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256).

Present — Centra, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Troutman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.3d 1119, 33 N.Y.S.3d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-weems-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack