From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Moquette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 20, 1994
200 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

January 20, 1994

Appeal from the County Court of Schenectady County (Aison, J.).


Despite being sentenced in accordance with the terms of a plea bargain, defendant is claiming that he should be resentenced because when it sentenced him County Court allegedly relied on inaccurate and prejudicial statements contained in the presentence investigation report. Inasmuch as defendant is not challenging the legality of the sentence, this appeal is precluded by his waiver of his right to appeal which we find was knowingly and voluntarily made (see, People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273; People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 9; People v. Govan, 199 A.D.2d 815; People v. Korona, 197 A.D.2d 788). Additionally, this appeal is foreclosed by defendant's failure to object at the time of sentencing (see, People v. De Torres, 96 A.D.2d 609). Were we to reach the merits, we would affirm because the allegedly prejudicial information did not induce County Court to retract its promise to impose the sentence contemplated by the plea bargain.

Cardona, P.J., Mikoll, Crew III and Weiss, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Moquette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 20, 1994
200 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Moquette

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EURALDO MOQUETTE…

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

Date published: Jan 20, 1994

Citations

200 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
606 N.Y.S.2d 820

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

Defendant argues that the People violated his rights by mentioning uncharged prior bad acts. This issue is…

People v. Williams

Defendant argues that the People violated his rights by mentioning uncharged prior bad acts. This issue is…