Legal Opinion
People v. Timberlake
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 22, 2011PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*1135The defendant contends that the terms of his plea agreement violate public policy, and that his pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. The defendant’s contentions, while not foreclosed by his valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570, 575 [1998]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]), are, however, unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Adams, 67 AD3d 819 [2009]). Although the defendant moved to vacate the judgments of conviction, his motion was not predicated on the grounds now raised on appeal (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- People v. LopezNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
- People v. SeabergNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- People v. FiumefreddoNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- People v. MunizNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
- People v. ValenciaNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- People v. ArringtonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. BenitezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. GuzzardoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. Shih-Siang Shawn LiaoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. Shih-Siang Shawn LiaoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013