People v. Whipple, 37 A.D.3d 1148 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2007). · Go Syfert
People v. Whipple, 37 A.D.3d 1148 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Cited for
At page 1148 Confirming accuracy of facts underlying the crime8 citing cases“the record establishes that defendant confirmed the accuracy of supreme court's recitation of the facts underlying the crime, and contrary to his contention, there is no requirement that he personally recite those facts”3 citing courts quote it · passage not found verbatim in the opinion (88%) · 5 listed here
  • People v. Russell, 133 A.D.3d 1199 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2015).published 2 cites
    Moreover, contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that his answers “confirmed the accuracy of [County Court’s] recitation of the facts underlying the crime[s], and . . . there is no requirement that [defendant] personally recite th…
  • People v. Williams, 118 A.D.3d 1429 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2014).published 2 cites
    In any event, “[t]he record establishes that defendant confirmed the accuracy of Supreme Court’s recitation of the facts underlying the crime, and contrary to [his] contention, there is no requirement that [he] personally recite those fact…
  • People v. Davis, 114 A.D.3d 1166 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2014).published 2 cites
    Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was invalid and thus does not preclude our review of his challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Williams, 46 AD3d 1424, 1425 [2007]; People v Whipple,…
  • Russell, Jeffery T., People v., No. KA 11-00192 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't Nov. 13, 2015).published
  • Williams, Larry, People v., No. KA 12-00893 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't June 20, 2014).published
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Jane Whipple
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 2, 2007.
Published opinion
37 A.D.3d 1148
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Bmnetti, A.J.), rendered July 9, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her, upon a plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the second degree (Penal Law § 155.40 [1]). Defendant failed to move to withdraw her plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve for our review her contention that her plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered (see People v Peterson, 35 AD3d 1195 [2006]; People v DeJesus, 248 AD2d 1023 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 878 [1998]). In any event, we conclude that defendant’s contention lacks merit. The record establishes that defendant confirmed the accuracy of Supreme Court’s recitation of the facts underlying the crime, and contrary to her contention, there is no requirement that she personally recite those facts (see People v Gunn, 35 AD3d 1243 [2006]; People v Spikes, 28 AD3d 1101, 1102 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 818 [2006]). Finally, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant is correct that her waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and thus that the challenge to the severity of the sentence is properly before us (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), we nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, PJ., Martoche, Smith, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.