green
Positive treatment
3.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Morris
Additionally, while the record reflects that defendant had a history of requiring speech and language therapy, as well as behavioral issues, there is nothing in the record to suggest that defendant " lacked the capacity to understand the plea proceeding' " ( People v Smith , 37 AD3d 1141 , 1142 [4th Dept 2007], lv [*2]denied 9 NY3d 851 [2007], reconsideration denied 9 NY3d 926 [2007]; see People v Smith , 5 AD3d 1095, 1095 [4th Dept 2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 807 [2004]; see also People v Scott , 144 AD3d 1597 , 1598 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1150 [2017]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. DeMoney
Hearsay evidence is admissible in a probation violation hearing and may be considered along with other evidence, but the court cannot conclude that a defendant violated probation without “a residuum of competent legal evidence” (People v Machia, 96 AD2d 1113, 1114 [1983]; see People v Spragis, 5 AD3d 814, 815 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 807 [2004]; People v Hogan, 284 AD2d 655, 655 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 641 [2001]; People v Marx, 222 AD2d 763, 764 [1995]; People v Styles, 175 AD2d 961 , 961 [1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 923 [1992]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Smith
The remarks and conduct of defendant “do not suggest that he lacked the capacity to understand the plea proceeding” (People v Jones, 8 AD3d 1021, 1021 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 676 [2004]; see People v Price, 309 AD2d 1259 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 578 [2003]), and the record establishes that the guilty plea “ ‘was voluntarily made with the advice of counsel following an appraisal of all the relevant factors’ ” (People v May, 305 AD2d 1095 , 1095 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 622 [2003], quoting People v Dixon, 29 NY2d 55, 57 [1971]; see People v Smith, 5 AD3d 1095 [2004], lv denied 2 N…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Vogel
We note, however, that defendant stipulated to the amount of restitution imposed and thereby waived his right to challenge the amount of restitution, ordered (see People v Huffman, 288 AD2d 907 , 908 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 755 [2002]; see also People v Sweeney, 4 AD3d 769 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 807 [2004]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE
v.
THOMAS (BERNARD)
v.
THOMAS (BERNARD)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 10, 2004.
2 N.Y.3d 807
Published
Application in criminal case for leave to appeal dismissed. (Read, J.)