People v. Tulip, 2017 NY Slip Op 4178 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · Go Syfert
People v. Tulip, 2017 NY Slip Op 4178 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
37 citation events (37 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017 2021 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cook
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
County Court did not explain the separate and distinct nature of the waiver or make any effort to determine whether defendant understood the implications of giving up his right to appeal ( see People v McClain , 161 AD3d 1457 , 1457-1458 [2018]; People v Woods , 150 AD3d 1560, 1562 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1095 [2017]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Benn
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Were we to address the issue, we would find that the court did not err in imposing the enhanced sentence under the circumstances presented because, when defendant was provided sufficient opportunity to dispute the alleged plea agreement violations ( see People v Valencia , 3 NY3d 714, 715 [2004]), he readily admitted to the proscribed conduct ( see People v Woods , 150 AD3d 1560, 1561 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1095 [2017]; People v Davis , 30 AD3d 893, 895 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 847 [2006]; People v Therrien , 301 AD2d 751, 752 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 633 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Schrom
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Initially, the People concede, and our review of the record confirms, that the waiver of the right to appeal was invalid inasmuch as County Court did not explain the separate and distinct nature of the waiver or ascertain that defendant fully understood its consequences ( see People v Loika , 153 AD3d 1516, 1517 [2017]; People v Woods , 150 AD3d 1560, 1562 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1095 [2017]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Farrell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Preliminarily, we note that defendant is not precluded from raising this claim by his waiver of the right to appeal as we find that it is invalid due to County Court’s failure to advise defendant of the separate and distinct nature of the waiver or ascertain that he fully understood its ramifications (see People v Rock, 151 AD3d 1383, 1384 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 953 [2017]; People v Woods, 150 AD3d 1560, 1562 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1095 [2017]).
discussed Cited "see" Woods v. Superintendent (2×)
N.D.N.Y. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Woods, 150 A.D.3d 1560, 1560 (3d Dep't 2017); see generally Dkt.
cited Cited "see" Woods v. Superintendent
N.D.N.Y. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
Pet. at 1-2; see People v. Woods, 150 A.D.3d 1560, 1560 (3rd Dep’t 2017).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
John R. Hess, Appellant
108323.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 25, 2017.
2017 NY Slip Op 4178
Devine, McCarthy, Egan, Lynch, Clark.
Published
Devine, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered May 18, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

Defendant pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with driving while intoxicated and waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to five years of probation. Defendant appeals.

We are unpersuaded by defendant’s contention that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. The record reflects that County Court adequately explained that the waiver of the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights forfeited by the guilty plea and defendant acknowledged that he understood the nature of the appeal waiver. In addition, defendant executed a detailed written waiver in open court after discussing its consequences with defense counsel. In view of the foregoing, defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Morgan, 142 AD3d 1253, 1253 [2016]; People v Simon, 140 AD3d 1533, 1534 [2016]). As such, the valid appeal waiver precludes defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v White, 145 AD3d 1324, 1325 [2016]).

McCarthy, J.R, Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.