THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. ELLEN MARIE LOCOCO AND MICHAEL J. LOCOCO, APPELLANTS.
92 N.Y.2d 825, 699 N.E.2d 416, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57 (1998).
June 4, 1998
CoCt No. 81
[98 NY Int. 0065]
Decided
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. JEFFREY STANLEY, APPELLANT.
92 N.Y.2d 825, 699 N.E.2d 416, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57 (1998).
June 4, 1998
CoCt No. 82
[98 NY Int. 0065]
Decided
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.
No. 81:
Richard T. Farrell, for appellant Michael Lococo.
Kevin J. Bauer, for appellant Ellen Lococo.
Raymond C. Herman, for respondent.
No. 82:
Kevin J. Bauer, for appellant.
Raymond C. Herman, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The Order of the Erie County Court should be affirmed in each case.
Defendants contend that they did not waive their right to appeal the severity of the court's sentence. We disagree.
Each defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived the right to appeal from any and all aspects of their case, including the severity of the sentence ( see, People v Hidalgo, ___NY2d___ [decided today]; People v Allen, 82 NY2d 761; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). While defendants did not know the specific sentence at the time of the waiver, they did know the maximum sentence the trial court could impose in its discretion. Since defendants knew the maximum exposure they could face upon pleading guilty, the waiver of their right to challenge the sentence in each case was knowing and intelligent ( see, People v Hidalgo,[ supra]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nos. 81 and 82: Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.
Decided