Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Reggie BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant was charged by an indictment with two counts of robbery in the first degree and one count of assault in the first degree. The case proceeded to trial, but the jury deadlocked, resulting in a mistrial. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to one count of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[1] ). As part of the plea bargain, defendant waived his right to appeal and admitted that he was a second felony offender in exchange for a dismissal of the other counts in the indictment and a promised sentence of the minimum period of incarceration for a second felony offender. We reject the contention of defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. To obtain a valid waiver, County Court was not required to engage in any particular litany (see, People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754; People v. Moissett, 76 N.Y.2d 909, 910-911, 563 N.Y.S.2d 43, 564 N.E.2d 653; People v. McDonald, 270 A.D.2d 955, 705 N.Y.S.2d 308, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 800, 711 N.Y.S.2d 168, 733 N.E.2d 240). During the plea allocution, defendant stated that he understood that he was waiving the right to appeal to a higher court. The plea allocution as a whole establishes that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The waiver encompasses the contention of defendant that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements to the police (see, People v. Frank, 258 A.D.2d 900, 901, 685 N.Y.S.2d 555, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 924, 693 N.Y.S.2d 507, 715 N.E.2d 510; People v. Hicks, 254 A.D.2d 48, 679 N.Y.S.2d 277, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 1033, 684 N.Y.S.2d 498, 707 N.E.2d 453).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions raised in the pro se supplemental briefs and conclude that they are without merit.
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 21, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)