green
Positive treatment
Issue: allocution concerning waiverNY ↗
Issue: viable justification defenseNY ↗
7.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Youngblood
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant, with the intent to cause the deaths of police officers engaged in the course of performing their official duties, engaged in conduct that tended to effect the commission of those crimes, and that defendant knew or reasonably should have known that they were police officers ( see §§ 110.00, 125.26 [1] [a] [i]; see generally People v Badger , 90 AD3d 1531 , 1532-1533 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 9…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Gibson
Initially, we note that “no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal the harshness of his sentence” and the determination to deny him youthful offender status (People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861 , 862 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 [2013], citing People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]; see People v Anderson, 90 AD3d 1475, 1476 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 991 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
GIBSON, GERALD, PEOPLE v
Initially, we note that “no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal the harshness of his sentence” and the determination to deny him youthful offender status (People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 , lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 , citing People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 ; see People v Anderson, 90 AD3d 1475, 1476 , lv denied 18 NY3d 991 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Gibson
Initially, we note that “no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal the harshness of his sentence” and the determination to deny him youthful offender status (People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861 , 862 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 [2013], citing People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]; see People v Anderson, 90 AD3d 1475, 1476 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 991 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Milliman
Moreover, “nothing [defendant] said raised the possibility of a viable justification defense” (People v Spickerman, 307 AD2d 774, 775 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 624 [2003]; cf. People v Ponder, 34 AD3d 1314, 1315 [2006]). “ ‘[T]he challenge by defendant [in his pro se supplemental brief] to the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury is forfeited by his guilty plea’ ” (People v Ruffin, 101 AD3d 1793 , 1793 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1019 [2013]; see People v Anderson, 90 AD3d 1475, 1477 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 991 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
MILLIMAN, SCOTT A., PEOPLE v
Moreover, “nothing [defendant] said raised the possibility of a viable justification defense” (People v Spickerman, 307 AD2d 774, 775 , lv denied 100 NY2d 624 ; cf. People v Ponder, 34 AD3d 1314, 1315 ). -2- 1243 KA 13-01610 “ ‘[T]he challenge by defendant [in his pro se supplemental brief] to the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury is forfeited by his guilty plea’ ” (People v Ruffin, 101 AD3d 1793, 1793 , lv denied 21 NY3d 1019 ; see People v Anderson, 90 AD3d 1475, 1477 , lv denied 18 NY3d 991 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Milliman
Moreover, “nothing [defendant] said raised the possibility of a viable justification defense” (People v Spickerman, 307 AD2d 774, 775 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 624 [2003]; cf. People v Ponder, 34 AD3d 1314, 1315 [2006]). “ ‘[T]he challenge by defendant [in his pro se supplemental brief] to the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury is forfeited by his guilty plea’ ” (People v Ruffin, 101 AD3d 1793 , 1793 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1019 [2013]; see People v Anderson, 90 AD3d 1475, 1477 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 991 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
MORELAND, ERICA, PEOPLE v
“A defendant may be presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his [or her] actions . . . , and [i]ntent may be inferred from the totality of conduct of the accused” (People v Mahoney, 6 AD3d 1104, 1104 , lv denied 3 NY3d 660 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v Badger, 90 AD3d 1531, 1532 , lv denied 18 NY3d 991 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Moreland
“A defendant may be presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his [or her] actions . . . , and [i]ntent may be inferred from the totality of conduct of the accused” (People v Mahoney, 6 AD3d 1104, 1104 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 660 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v Badger, 90 AD3d 1531 , 1532 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 991 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Moreland
“A defendant may be presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his [or her] actions . . . , and [i]ntent may be inferred from the totality of conduct of the accused” (People v Mahoney, 6 AD3d 1104, 1104 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 660 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v Badger, 90 AD3d 1531 , 1532 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 991 [2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE
v.
ADAMS.
v.
ADAMS.
Not in source.
New York Court of Appeals.
Apr 24, 2012.
Published
Application in criminal case for leave to appeal granted. (Jones, J.).