Case Name: 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
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1998-06-04
Citations: 92 N.Y.2d 825
Docket Number: 
Parties: 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.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 825–827

Head Matter:
[699 NE2d 416, 677 NYS2d 57]
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.
Argued May 6, 1998;
decided June 4, 1998
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.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
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.