Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thomas
Further, the defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the agreed-upon sentence, which was in fact imposed, was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255, 257 ; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d at 10 ; People v Arias, 100 AD3d 914 [2012]; People v Hawthorne, 85 AD3d 819 [2011]; People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 827 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jacques
In addition, the defendant’s valid waiver of a Huntley hearing (see People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]) precludes appellate review of the propriety of the trial court’s admission into evidence of the defendant’s videotaped pre-arraignment statements (cf. People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 827 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jacques
In addition, the defendant’s valid waiver of a Huntley hearing (see People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]) precludes appellate review of the propriety of the trial court’s admission into evidence of the defendant’s videotaped pre-arraignment statements (cf. People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 827 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ross
Moreover, by validly pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claim that he was denied his right to testify before the grand jury (see People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 826-827 [2011]; People v Standley, 269 AD2d 614, 615 [2000]; People v Ferrara, 99 AD2d 257, 259 [1984]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ross
Moreover, by validly pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claim that he was denied his right to testify before the grand jury (see People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 826-827 [2011]; People v Standley, 269 AD2d 614, 615 [2000]; People v Ferrara, 99 AD2d 257, 259 [1984]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Fate
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claim that he was deprived of his right to testify before the grand jury (see People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 826-827 [2011]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Fate
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claim that he was deprived of his right to testify before the grand jury (see People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 826-827 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Arias
The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his claim that the agreed-upon sentence, which was in fact imposed, was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255, 257 [2006]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Hawthorne, 85 AD3d 819 [2011]; People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 827 [2011]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ropiza
The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal also precludes appellate review of his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 827 [2011]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ropiza
The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal also precludes appellate review of his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 827 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Arias
The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his claim that the agreed-upon sentence, which was in fact imposed, was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255, 257 [2006]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Hawthorne, 85 AD3d 819 [2011]; People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 827 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Williams
The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his claim that his sentence was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]; People v Holman, 89 NY2d 876 [1996]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 [1989]; People v Hawthorne, 85 AD3d 819 [2011]; People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 827 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Williams
The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his claim that his sentence was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]; People v Holman, 89 NY2d 876 [1996]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 [1989]; People v Hawthorne, 85 AD3d 819 [2011]; People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 827 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Crews
The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea al locution (see People v Hardee, 84 AD3d 835 [2011]; People v Brown, 78 AD3d 723 [2010]; People v Budden, 77 AD3d 672 [2010]; People v Johnson, 73 AD3d 951 [2010]), and of his claim that his sentence was excessive (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d at 738 ; People v Hawthorne, 85 AD3d 819 [2011]; People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826, 827 [2011]; People v Sorino, 82 AD3d 911, 912 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hawthorne
The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim that the agreed-upon sentence, which was, in fact, imposed, was excessive (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Benitez, 84 AD3d 826,827 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Robert Benitez
v.
Robert Benitez
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 3, 2011.
Cited by 17 opinions | Published
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Rooney, J.), rendered November 14, 2007, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claim that he[*827] was deprived of his right to testify before the grand jury (see People v DeLuca, 45 AD3d 777 [2007]; People v Standley, 269 AD2d 614, 615 [2000]).
The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim that the agreed-upon sentence, which was, in fact, imposed, was excessive (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Timberlake, 82 AD3d 1134 [2011]; People v Lewis, 73 AD3d 1212 [2010]). Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Hall, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.