People v. Parker, 2017 NY Slip Op 5019 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · Go Syfert
People v. Parker, 2017 NY Slip Op 5019 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Gessner (nyappdiv, 2017-11-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gessner
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Defendant’s contention that the People acted vindictively in presenting the felony charge to the grand jury was forfeited by his plea of guilty (see People v Taylor, 65 NY2d 1 , 5 [1985]; People v Rodriguez, 55 NY2d 776, 777 [1981]) and, in any event, is encompassed by his valid and unrestricted waiver of the right to appeal (see generally People v Parker, 151 AD3d 1876, 1876 [4th Dept 2017]; People v Gilliam, 96 AD3d 1650, 1650-1651 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Giles
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
The record establishes that the court, following the model colloquy, explained that the listed issues were "[a]mong the limited number of claims" of error that would survive a valid waiver and, contrary to defendant's suggestion, "[n]o 'particular litany' is required for a waiver of the right to appeal to be valid" ( People v Wood , 217 AD3d 1407, 1408 [4th Dept 2023], quoting Lopez , 6 NY3d at 256 ; see People v Parker , 151 AD3d 1876, 1876 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 982 [2017]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Ogden
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Such a conclusion, of course, is entirely at odds with existing precedent ( see Giles , 219 AD3d at 1707 ; see also Parker , 151 AD3d at 1876; see generally People v Johnson , — NY3d &mdash, &mdash, 2025 NY Slip Op 06528, *2 [2025]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Ogden
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Such a conclusion, of course, is entirely at odds with existing precedent ( see Giles , 219 AD3d at 1707 ; see also Parker , 151 AD3d at 1876; see generally People v Johnson , — NY3d &mdash, &mdash, 2025 NY Slip Op 06528, *2 [2025]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
"No 'particular litany' is required for a waiver of the right to appeal to be valid" ( People v Wood , 217 AD3d 1407, 1408 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1000 [2023], quoting People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; see also People v Parker , 151 AD3d 1876 , 1876 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 982 [2017]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Hoose (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
"No 'particular litany' is required for a waiver of the right to appeal to be valid" ( People v Wood , 217 AD3d 1407, 1408 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 30 NY3d 1000 [2023], quoting People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006] ; see also People v Parker , 151 AD3d 1876, 1876 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 982 [2017]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Durval W. Parker, Appellant
882 KA 15-01765.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 16, 2017.
2017 NY Slip Op 5019
Whalen, Peradotto, Dejoseph, Cur-Ran, Winslow.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boiler, A.J.), rendered April 21, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [12]). Defendant’s sole contention is that, under CPL 20.40 and the New York Constitution, the Erie County grand jury lacked authority and jurisdiction to indict him for the crime committed in Niagara County to which he pleaded guilty. We conclude that defendant’s contention is foreclosed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see generally People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570, 573-574 [1998]). Although defendant contends that the waiver does not encompass his challenge to the geographic jurisdiction of the grand jury inasmuch as that issue was not specifically mentioned during the waiver colloquy, the court “need not expressly delineate for a defendant those appellate issues that are foreclosed by a waiver of the right to appeal, and those that survive, in order for the court to obtain a valid appeal waiver” (People v Nickell, 49 AD3d 1024, 1025 [2008]). We note, in any event, that defendant’s challenge to geographical jurisdiction in Erie County is foreclosed by his guilty plea (see People v Hand, 140 AD3d 636, 637 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 971 [2016]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Peradotto, DeJoseph, Cur-ran and Winslow, JJ.