People v. Lococo

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 92 N.Y.2d 825, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57, 699 N.E.2d 416

Decision Date: 6/4/1998

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People v. Lococo, 92 N.Y.2d 825, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57, 699 N.E.2d 416 (1998)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1998

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Landmark AuthorityTop 1% most-cited · cited by 431 decisions

431

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

162

250

1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.430

NY1

Most recently cited by10

2026People v. Manning N.Y. App. Div.
2025People v. Rodriguez N.Y. App. Div.
2025People v. Faison N.Y. App. Div.
2024People v. Mahoney N.Y. App. Div.
2023People v. Carson N.Y. App. Div.
2022People v. Carr N.Y. App. Div.
2022People v. Barber N.Y. App. Div.
2022People v. Lollie N.Y. App. Div.
2020People v. Mess N.Y. App. Div.
2020People v. Chapman N.Y. App. Div.

Cites 4 cases

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ellen M. Lococo and Michael J. Lococo, Appellants. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Stanley, Appellant.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Kevin J. Bauer, Buffalo, for Ellen M. Lococo, appellant.
Richard T. Farrell, Brooklyn, for Michael J. Lococo, appellant.
Kevin J. Bauer, Buffalo, and Brown & Mohun, Depew, for Jeffrey Stanley, appellant.
Frank J. Clark, District Attorney of Erie County, Buffalo (Raymond C. Herman and J. Michael Marion of counsel), for respondent.

majority

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, 91 NY2d 733 [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).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

In each case: Order affirmed in a memorandum.