People v. Selim

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Horton

    167 A.D.3d 1166 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 4 times

    Contrary to defendant's assertion, we find that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. County Court advised defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the trial-related rights that defendant automatically was forfeiting by pleading guilty, and defendant, who was aware that such waiver was a condition of the plea agreement, confirmed his understanding thereof (seePeople v. Jawan, 165 A.D.3d 1350, 1350, 82 N.Y.S.3d 905 [2018] ; People v. Selim, 164 A.D.3d 1576, 1576, 81 N.Y.S.3d 920 [2018] ). Additionally, defendant executed a written waiver in open court, wherein he expressly waived his right to challenge the sentence imposed as harsh and excessive and, in response to County Court's inquiries, indicated that he had read the written waiver, understood it contents, had no questions relative thereto and had been afforded sufficient time to confer with counsel (seePeople v. McDonald, 165 A.D.3d 1327, 1327–1328, 83 N.Y.S.3d 751 [2018] ; People v. Gilliam, 162 A.D.3d 1413, 1414, 79 N.Y.S.3d 754 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1064, 89 N.Y.S.3d 119, 113 N.E.3d 953, 2018 WL 6033460 [Oct. 3, 2018] ; People v. Brothers, 155 A.D.3d 1257, 1258, 63 N.Y.S.3d 907 [2017] ).

  2. People v. Daniels

    167 A.D.3d 1087 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 4 times

    Under these circumstances, we find that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (seePeople v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 341, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 [2015] ; People v. Tucker, 164 A.D.3d 948, 949, 81 N.Y.S.3d 677 [2018] ). As such, his challenge to the severity of the agreed-upon sentence is foreclosed (seePeople v. Selim, 164 A.D.3d 1576, 1576, 81 N.Y.S.3d 920 [2018] ; People v. Marable, 164 A.D.3d 1542, 1543, 83 N.Y.S.3d 744 [2018] ; People v. Saunders, 162 A.D.3d 1217, 1218, 78 N.Y.S.3d 790 [2018] ). Although defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of the plea is not precluded by the valid appeal waiver, the issue is unpreserved for our review as the record does not reflect that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion (seePeople v. Jawan, 165 A.D.3d 1350, 1351, 82 N.Y.S.3d 905 [2018] ; People v. Norton, 164 A.D.3d 1502, 1503, 82 N.Y.S.3d 665 [2018] ).

  3. People v. Kindred

    166 A.D.3d 1229 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    As such, we find that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary and intelligently entered (seePeople v. Atkinson, 164 A.D.3d 1572, 1572, 81 N.Y.S.3d 923 [2018] ; People v. Garcia, 164 A.D.3d 958, 958–959, 77 N.Y.S.3d 912 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1003, 86 N.Y.S.3d 762, 111 N.E.3d 1118, 2018 WL 4941305 [Sept. 12, 2018] ). Accordingly, defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed is precluded (seePeople v. Selim, 164 A.D.3d 1576, 1576, 81 N.Y.S.3d 920 [2018] ; People v. Tucker, 164 A.D.3d 948, 949–950, 81 N.Y.S.3d 677 [2018] ). Although defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea survives the valid appeal waiver, it is nevertheless unpreserved for our review as the record does not reflect that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion (seePeople v. Lamb, 162 A.D.3d 1395, 1396, 80 N.Y.S.3d 520 [2018] ; People v. Gomez, 162 A.D.3d 1311, 1311–1312, 79 N.Y.S.3d 740 [2018] ).