People v. Bautista, 857 N.E.2d 49 (N.Y. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Bautista, 857 N.E.2d 49 (N.Y. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
34 citation events (34 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Welch, 2026 NY Slip Op 00700 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2026)
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006 2016 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
7 N.Y.3d at 838 OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. The appeal should be dismissed. Appeals in criminal cases are9 citing casesopening of page *838 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • People v. Welch, 2026 NY Slip Op 00700 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2026).published
    Given that " '[a]ppeals in criminal cases are strictly limited to those authorized by statute,' " I conclude that the present appeal "is not properly before this Court and must be dismissed" ( id. , quoting People v Bautista , 7 NY3d 838,…
  • People v. Melissa OO., 2024 NY Slip Op 05920 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2024).published 2 cites
    Thus, as "[a]ppeals in criminal cases are strictly limited to those authorized by statute," this appeal is not properly before this Court and must be dismissed ( People v Bautista , 7 NY3d 838, 838-839 [2006]). [FN5] Garry, P.J., Lynch, Re…
  • Matter of People v. Juarez, 31 N.Y.3d 1186 (N.Y. 2018).published
    Attorney's Off.] , 29 NY3d 231, 242 [2017] [observing that "(n)o appeal lies from a determination made in a criminal proceeding unless specifically provided for by statute"], quoting People v Pagan , 19 NY3d 328, 370 [2012], and citing Peo…
  • People v. Booker, 2018 NY Slip Op 1959 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2018).published
    As to an appeal of the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, "[a]ppeals in criminal cases are strictly limited to those authorized by statute" ( People v Bautista , 7 NY3d 838, 838-839 [2006]; accord People v Rubeo , 60 AD3d 1206,…
  • The Matter of 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook Inc. v. New York Cnty. Dist. Attorney's Off., 78 N.E.3d 141 (N.Y. 2017).published 2 cites
    It is a fundamental precept of the jurisdiction of our appellate courts that “ finjo appeal lies from a determination made in a criminal proceeding unless specifically provided for by statute’ ” (People v Lovett, 25 NY3d 1088, 1090 [2015],…
  • People v. Shire, 96 A.D.3d 1294 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2012).published 2 cites
    “Appeals in criminal cases are strictly limited to those authorized by statute” (People v Bautista, 7 NY3d 838, 838-839 [2006]; see People v De Jesus, 54 NY2d 447, 449 [1981]; Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59, 63 [1975]).
  • People v. Buckery, 84 A.D.3d 1588 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2011).published
    “Appeals in criminal cases are strictly limited to those autho rized by statute” (People v Bautista, 7 NY3d 838, 838-839 [2006]; see CPL 450.10, 450.15, 450.20).
  • People v. Pearson, 82 A.D.3d 475 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2011).published
    People v Bautista, 7 NY3d 838, 838-839 [2006]).
  • People v. Rubeo, 60 A.D.3d 1206 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2009).published
    Initially, we note that “[a]ppeals in criminal cases are strictly limited to those authorized by statute” (People v Bautista, 7 NY3d 838, 838-839 [2006]; see People v Whalen, 49 AD3d 916, 916 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 940 [2008]).
7 N.Y.3d at 839 “appeals in criminal cases are strictly limited to those authorized by statute”3 citing cases7 citing courts quote it
  • People v. Johnson, 2022 NY Slip Op 01844 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2022).published
    A defendant's right to appeal to this Court in a criminal case is "strictly limited to those authorized by statute" ( People v Bautista , 7 NY3d 838, 839 [2006]; see CPL 450.10; 450.30).
  • People v. Pagan, 971 N.E.2d 347 (N.Y. 2012).published
    We have emphasized that criminal appeals are thereby “limited” (People v Bautista, 7 NY3d 838, 839 [2006]), and that “[c]ourts must construe clear and unambiguous statutes as enacted and may not resort to interpretative contrivances to bro…
  • People v. Whalen, 49 A.D.3d 916 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2008).published
    As the Court of Appeals has noted, “a defendant’s right to appeal within the criminal procedure universe is purely statutory” (People v Stevens, 91 NY2d 270, 278 [1998]) and, therefore, is “strictly limited” (People v Bautista, 7 NY3d 838,…
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Patricio Bautista, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Sep 21, 2006.
Published opinion
857 N.E.2d 49
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Gayle Pollack and Robert S. Dean of counsel), for appellant., Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City 0Christopher Marinetti of counsel), for respondent., Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York, Albany (Joel Landau of counsel), and another, amici curiae.
Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith Concur.
Cited by 31 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The appeal should be dismissed. Appeals in criminal cases are[*839] strictly limited to those authorized by statute (see People v De Jesus, 54 NY2d 447, 449 [1981]; Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59, 63 [1975]). Except for capital cases, appeals to the Court of Appeals in criminal cases are by permission, rather than as of right, and are governed by CPL 450.90 and CPL 470.60. CPL 450.90 (1) authorizes an appeal to this Court by permission only from an “adverse or partially adverse order of an intermediate appellate court entered upon an appeal taken to such intermediate appellate court pursuant to section 450.10, 450.15, or 450.20.” The order before us clearly does not come within the provisions of CPL 450.10, 450.15 or 450.20. * CPL 470.60 (3) allows an appeal to this Court from an order of an intermediate appellate court dismissing an appeal to that court, and has no application here.

Chapter 643 of the Laws of 2005, the unconsolidated law at issue, provides that “[a]n appeal may be taken as of right in accordance with applicable provisions of the criminal procedure law: (a) from an order denying resentencing” (L 2005, ch 643, § 1). We reject defendant’s argument that chapter 643 authorizes not only an appeal as of right to the intermediate appellate court, but also an appeal to this Court by permission pursuant to CPL 450.90. The Legislature failed to mention CPL 450.90 in chapter 643 of the Laws of 2005. Moreover, the Legislature did not amend the language of CPL 450.10 or CPL 450.15 to provide in those sections for appeals to the intermediate appellate court from orders denying applications for resentencing, so as to bring such orders within the scope of CPL 450.90 (1).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Cipakick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

Appeal dismissed in a memorandum.

*

An order denying an application for resentencing is not equivalent to an appealable sentence (see De Jesus, 54 NY2d at 449), or to an order denying a CPL 440.20 motion to set aside a sentence (compare L 2005, ch 643 [orders denying applications for resentencing appealable as of right] with CPL 450.15 [2] [orders denying motions to set aside sentences appealable by permission]).