Summary
In Russell, although part of the plea agreement was a provision that sentencing be as a second violent felony offender, the plea minutes show that defense counsel stated that she had not seen the record of the prior conviction and thus had been unable to advise the defendant as to whether he had any legitimate challenges to the prior conviction.
Summary of this case from People v. BurkOpinion
December 17, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At a court appearance, during which the defendant and his attorney negotiated the terms relative to the disposition of the case, the defendant told the court that as a condition of his guilty plea, he would waive "all rights of appeal as to what * * * happened here this morning". Under the standards enunciated in People v. Seaberg ( 74 N.Y.2d 1), we find that the defendant's "waiver" did not extend to his right to appeal the alleged excessiveness of his sentence, which was imposed some three weeks later. However, the defendant received the sentence that he bargained for (People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816), which was neither excessive nor an abuse of the sentencing court's discretion (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Contrary to the defendant's pro se contention, our review of the record indicates that his attorney provided "meaningful representation" (People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.