PEOPLE v. SOULSBY (1999)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David L. SOULSBY, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: November 12, 1999

PRESENT: DENMAN, P.J., HAYES, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER and BALIO, JJ.

Leonard G. Tilney, Jr., Lockport, for defendant-appellant. Thomas H. Brandt and Timothy P. Murphy, Lockport, for plaintiff-respondent.

Defendant's knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal forecloses our review of defendant's contention concerning the severity of the sentence (see, People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 736, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46; People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022). Contrary to the contention of defendant, he was properly sentenced as a second felony offender (see, Penal Law § 70.06[1][b] ). Furthermore, contrary to the contention raised by defendant in his pro se supplemental brief, the waiver of the right to appeal encompassed the contention that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel (cf., People v. Ferguson, 192 A.D.2d 800, 596 N.Y.S.2d 533, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 717, 602 N.Y.S.2d 814, 622 N.E.2d 315), and, in any event, that contention is without merit (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network