Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jackson
In any event, defendant’s contention lacks merit (see People v Moorer, 63 AD3d 1590, 1591 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 837 [2009]; People v Jones, 42 AD3d 968, 968 [2007]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jackson
In any event, defendant’s contention lacks merit (see People v Moorer, 63 AD3d 1590, 1591 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 837 [2009]; People v Jones, 42 AD3d 968, 968 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Williams
By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his further contention that he was denied his right to testify before the grand jury based on the prosecutor’s refusal to provide him with notice of all charges the grand jury would consider (see People v Gray, 62 AD3d 1256 [2009]; People v Hoeft, 42 AD3d 968, 969 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 962 [2007]; People v Winchester, 38 AD3d 1336, 1337 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 853 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Pettigrew
The contention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief concerning alleged prosecutorial vindictiveness is based upon matters outside the record and thus must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 (see People v Hoeft, 42 AD3d 968, 969-970 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 962 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Carlisle
Defendant’s contention concerning alleged prosecutorial misconduct concerns matters outside the record on appeal and thus must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see People v Hoeft, 42 AD3d 968, 969-970 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 962 [2007]; see generally People v Williams, 48 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Craven
To the extent that his contention is based upon matters outside the record, it must be raised in a CPL article 440 proceeding (see People v Hoeft, 42 AD3d 968, 969-970 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 962 [2007]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hafer
Although defendant, the People and the court all agreed that defendant's Alford plea would be premised on the preservation of his right to raise these issues on appeal, conditional pleas such as this are generally not accepted in this state ( see People v Di Donato , 87 NY2d 992, 993 [1996]; People v Di Raffaele , 55 NY2d 234, 240 [1982]; People v Thomas , 53 NY2d 338, 344-345 [1981]; see also People v Mack , 53 NY2d 803, 806 [1981]; People v Pierre , 8 AD3d 904, 906 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 710 [2004]), and the contentions he sought to preserve do not fall within the "extremely limite…
discussed
Cited "see"
GOOSSENS, CARL, PEOPLE v
Contrary to defendant’s contention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v Lopez ( 71 NY2d 662, 666 ), “inasmuch as nothing in the plea colloquy casts significant doubt on defendant’s guilt or the voluntariness of the plea” (People v Lewandowski, 82 AD3d 1602, 1602 ; see Jones, 42 AD3d 968 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Goossens
Contrary to defendant’s contention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v Lopez ( 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]), “inasmuch as nothing in the plea colloquy casts significant doubt on defendant’s guilt or the voluntariness of the plea” (People v Lewandowski, 82 AD3d 1602, 1602 [2011]; see Jones, 42 AD3d 968 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Dennis L. Wakula
v.
Dennis L. Wakula
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 6, 2007.
Published
Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered February 8, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal contempt in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed. Present — Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.