From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Davidson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 2002
298 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

KA 99-02121

October 1, 2002.

Appeal from a judgment of Monroe County Court (Connell, J.), entered February 6, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (two counts).

R. ADRIAN SOLOMON, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

HOWARD R. RELIN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (AMY I. MOLLOY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., WISNER, SCUDDER, BURNS, AND GORSKI, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15) in connection with the robbery of a restaurant in Rochester. Contrary to the contention of defendant, his general waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered and encompasses County Court's suppression ruling ( see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833; People v. Brown, 281 A.D.2d 962, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 899). In any event, the contention of defendant that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to the police is without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Davidson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 2002
298 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Davidson

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. SHERROD…

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

Date published: Oct 1, 2002

Citations

298 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
747 N.Y.S.2d 822

Citing Cases

People v. Lynch

Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of defendant, his waiver of the right to appeal entered as part of the…

PEOPLE v. LA BAR

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.…