Opinion

People v. Lococo

  • 92 N.Y.2d 825
  • 677 N.Y.S.2d 57
  • 699 N.E.2d 416
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Filed
Jun 4, 1998
Status
Published
On the bench
Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley Concur
Cited by
697 cases
Authority
More cited than 99.9%

The opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Erie County Court should be affirmed in each case.

Defendants contend that they did not waive their right to appeal the severity of the court’s sentence. We disagree.

Each defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived the right to appeal from any and all aspects of their case, including the severity of the sentence

(see, People v Hidalgo,

91 NY2d 733 [decided today];

People v Allen,

82 NY2d 761 ;

People v Seaberg,

74 NY2d 1 ). While defendants did not know the specific sentence at the time of the waiver, they did know the maximum sentence the trial court could impose in its discretion. Since defendants knew the maximum exposure they could face upon pleading guilty, the waiver of their right to challenge the sentence in each case was knowing and intelligent

(see, People v Hidalgo, supra; People v Callahan,

80 NY2d 273 ).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

In each case: Order affirmed in a memorandum.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.