People v. SheppardPeople v. Sheppard
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant‘s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel‘s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]; People v Vasquez, 70 NY2d 1 [1987]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Goldstein, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Lunn, JJ., concur.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MARK SHEPPARD, Appellant. [813 NYS2d 911]—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ferdinand, J.), rendered January 11, 2005, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
As conceded by the prosecution, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant‘s purported waiver of his right to appeal his sentence cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Brown, 13 AD3d 548 [2004]; People v Williams, 258 AD2d 544 [1999]; People v Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]). Accordingly, we have considered the defendant‘s contentions that the sentence imposed was unconstitutional as applied or otherwise excessive. We find that the defendant‘s contentions are without merit (see
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JEETRANAUTH UMADAT, Appellant. [814 NYS2d 744]—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), rendered August 4, 2004, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), criminal sale of marijuana in the fourth degree, and unlawful possession of marijuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Cooperman, J.), of those branches of the defendant‘s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The factual findings and credibility determinations of a hearing court are accorded great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Cameron, 6 AD3d 546 [2004]). Here, nothing in the record supports the defendant‘s contention that the testimony of the arresting detective at the hearing was incredible or patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see People v James, 19 AD3d 617, 618 [2005]; People v Natiello, 294 AD2d 451 [2002]; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant‘s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials. Goldstein, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Lunn, JJ., concur.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. ROBERT M. SIMELS, on Behalf of JUAN J. SAPEG, Petitioner, v ANTHONY AMICUCCI, Respondent. [813 NYS2d 915]—Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application for bail reduction upon Westchester County Superior Court information Nos. 955S-2005 and 956S-2005.
Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The determination of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, was not an improvident exercise of discretion, and did not violate “constitutional or statutory standards” (People ex rel. Klein v Krueger, 25 NY2d 497, 499 [1969]; see People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson, 48 NY2d 230 [1979]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.