From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Milgrom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 12, 2001
281 A.D.2d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted February 13, 2001.

March 12, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered December 18, 1995, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Gautam Rana of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Anastasia Spanakos, and Keith Kalmus of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

It is well established that "where the plea allocution demonstrates a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal, intended comprehensively to cover all aspects of the case, and no constitutional or statutory mandate or public policy concern prohibits its acceptance, the waiver will be upheld completely even if the underlying claim has not yet reached full maturation" (People v. Muniz, 91 N.Y.2d 570, 575). Moreover, trial courts are not required to engage in any particular litany during an allocution in order to obtain a valid plea of guilty in which the defendant waives a plethora of rights (see, People v. Moissett, 76 N.Y.2d 909, 910-911).

The defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to appeal as part of a plea bargain. During the plea allocution, the court specifically told the defendant that he was giving up the right to appeal from the judgment as well as the adverse suppression ruling. Thus, there was a valid waiver of the right to appeal, which encompassed the denial of the suppression motion (see, People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831; People v. Williams, 36 N.Y.2d 829, cert denied 423 U.S. 873). Since the suppression issue is the only issue raised on appeal, the judgment of conviction must be affirmed (see, People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 283-285).


Summaries of

People v. Milgrom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 12, 2001
281 A.D.2d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Milgrom

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. JEFFREY MILGROM, APPELLANT

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 12, 2001

Citations

281 A.D.2d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
721 N.Y.S.2d 777

Citing Cases

People v. Sampson

In any event, the contentions are without merit. The trial court properly allocuted the defendant as to the…

People v. Nieves

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his…