green
Positive treatment
Issue: plea was coerced defenseNY ↗
Issue: representation defenseNY ↗
Issue: conducted a sufficient inquiryNY ↗
20.7 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2007 ·
…the contention of defendant that the plea was coerced and thus was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered 'is belied by his statement during the plea proceeding that he was not threatened, coerced or otherwise influenced against his will into pleading guilty
at p. 1274
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Wood
Although defendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel survives his plea and valid waiver of the right to appeal insofar as defendant "contends that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that [he] entered the plea because of [his] attorney['s] allegedly poor performance" ( People v Molski , 179 AD3d 1540, 1540-1541 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 972 [2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]), that contention involves matters outside the record and therefore it is not reviewable on direct appeal ( see People v Long …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Strasser
Defendant’s contention that the plea was coerced by defense counsel is belied by his statements during the plea colloquy that no one forced him to plead guilty and that he was satisfied with the representation of defense counsel (see Irvine, 42 AD3d 949 ; People v Nichols, 21 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 757 [2005]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Toliver
The contention of defendant that his plea was involuntary because he was coerced by defense counsel is belied by his responses to the court’s questions during the plea colloquy, indicating that he was pleading guilty voluntarily and that no threats or promises had induced the plea (see People v Gimenez, 59 AD3d 1088 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 816 [2009]; People v Nichols, 21 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 757 [2005]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Gimenez
Any challenge by defendant to the voluntariness of the plea based on alleged coercion is belied by defendant’s responses to County Court’s questions during the plea colloquy (see People v Nichols, 21 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 757 [2005]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Liggins
According to defendant, defense counsel failed to advise him that he had a viable defense based on his age, which would have resulted in the disposition of the charges in Family Court as reckless manslaughter rather than as depraved indifference murder in County Court (see generally People v Bowman, 34 AD3d 935, 937 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 844 [2007]; People v Nichols, 21 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 757 [2005]), and he would not have pleaded guilty to depraved indifference murder had he known of that defense (see People v Bonilla, 6 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Singletary
Here, the record is devoid of any indication of fraud or innocence, and defendant’s conclusory allegation of coercion is belied by the transcript of his plea allocution, wherein defendant plainly denied that he had been threatened or otherwise forced to plead guilty (see People v Nichols, 21 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 757 [2005]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Irvine
“The contention of defendant that the plea was coerced and thus was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered ‘is belied by [his] statement during the plea proceeding that [he] was not threatened, coerced or otherwise influenced against [his] will into pleading guilty’ ” (People v Nichols, 21 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 757 [2005]; see People v Gradia, 28 AD3d 1206, 1206-1207 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 756 [2006]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thompson
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed (see People v Nichols, 21 AD3d 1273, 1274-1275 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 757 [2005]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thompson
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed (see People v Nichols, 21 AD3d 1273, 1274-1275 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 757 [2005]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. June
The waiver of the right to appeal also encompasses the contention that defendant should be afforded youthful offender status (see People v Nichols, 21 AD3d 1273, 1274-1275 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 757 [2005]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Eastman
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed (see People v Nichols, 21 AD3d 1273, 1274-1275 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 757 [2005]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Lawrence
With respect to defendant’s complaints that defense counsel failed to investigate the case properly and failed to interview a potential witness, those complaints “ ‘involve[ ] matters dehors the record, which are not reviewable on this direct appeal’ ” (People v Nichols, 21 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2005]; see People v Prince, 5 AD3d 1098, 1098-1099 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 804 [2004]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Crosby
"Far from being coercive, defense counsel's advice . . . that the case could not be won," and his realistic explanation to defendant of the benefits of accepting the People's plea offer under the circumstances, "fulfilled defense counsel's duty to warn his client of the risks of going to trial" ( People v Spinks , 227 AD2d 310 , 310 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 995 [1996]; see People v Nichols , 21 AD3d 1273, 1274 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 757 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Molski
Defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by counsel's performance during the investigatory phase prior to formal charges being brought against him survives his plea and valid waiver of the right to appeal insofar as defendant contends that "the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of [his] attorney['s] allegedly poor performance" ( People v Rausch , 126 AD3d 1535 , 1535 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1149 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Nichols , 21 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Allport
The further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel survives his plea and waiver of the right to appeal inasmuch as he contends that the plea was coerced by defense counsel (see People v Peterson, 56 AD3d 1230 [2008]), but that contention is belied by defendant’s statements during the plea colloquy (see People v Farley, 34 AD3d 1229 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 880 [2007]; see also People v Nichols, 21 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 757 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Peterson
Although the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel “survives his guilty plea and his waiver of the right to appeal inasmuch as he contends that his plea was infected by the alleged ineffective assistance” (People v Jennings, 8 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 676 [2004]), that contention involves matters outside the record on appeal and thus must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see id.; see also People v Nichols, 21 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 757 [2005]; People v Prince, 5 AD3d 1098, 1098-1999 [2004], lv denied…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dorothy Allen
v.
James O. Braxton
v.
James O. Braxton
Appeal No. 1.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 30, 2005.
Published
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Peter J. Notaro, J.), entered October 18, 2004 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, denied that part of the motion of defendant James O. Braxton seeking an adjournment of the trial and his subsequent motion to strike the note of issue.
It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs (see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 AD2d 988 [1988]; Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v Roberts & Roberts, 63 AD2d 566, 567 [1978]; see also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Pine, JJ.