WASHINGTON, D'ALLYN E., PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

WASHINGTON, D'ALLYN E., PEOPLE v

117 A.D.3d 1416, 984 N.Y.S.2d 627

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 2, 2014·No. KA 12-02112·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Cattaraugus County Court (Larry M. Himelein, J.), rendered August 13, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]) and robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and that valid waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). We have examined defendant’s contentions in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that none requires reversal or modification of the judgment.

Present — Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Cattaraugus County Court (Larry M. Himelein, J.), rendered August 13, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]) and robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and that valid waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). We have examined defendant’s contentions in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that none requires reversal or modification of the judgment.

Present — Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

WASHINGTON, D'ALLYN E., PEOPLE v, 117 A.D.3d 1416, 984 N.Y.S.2d 627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

117 A.D.3d 1416 (WASHINGTON, D'ALLYN E., PEOPLE v) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related