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.
The People, etc., respondent, v. Rudolph Pook, appellant.
Submitted-April 21, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant from (1) an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Wong, J.), rendered May 15, 2008, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Kron, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of assault in the second degree under Indictment No. 3736/02, and (2) a judgment of the same court (McGann, J.), rendered September 24, 2008, convicting him of rape in the second degree under Indictment No. 3148/05, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the amended judgment and the judgment are affirmed.
The defendant's waivers of his right to appeal were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738; People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255; People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 9) and, thus, preclude review of his claim that the sentence imposed upon his violation of probation was excessive (see People v. Burton, 69 AD3d 644; People v. Kimbrough, 25 AD3d 810, 810-811). Furthermore, since the defendant was informed that a maximum sentence could be imposed if he failed to complete the sexual offender's counseling program, appellate review of his contention that the enhanced sentence imposed upon his conviction of rape in the second degree was excessive is also precluded by that waiver (see People v. Bullock, 54 AD3d 959; People v. Ruiz, 48 AD3d 834; People v. Greene, 13 AD3d 647, 648).
FISHER, J.P., COVELLO, BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and LOTT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: 2008-04929 2008-09260 (Ind.Nos. 3736 /02, 3148 /05)
Decided: May 11, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)