G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Days
Turning to the issues that were raised but not addressed when the matter was previously before us, we conclude that, as the People correctly concede, defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal is invalid inasmuch as the court’s minimal inquiry “was insufficient to establish that the court engage [d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Forest
We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because the minimal inquiry made by the court was “insufficient to establish that the court engage [d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Forest
We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because the minimal inquiry made by the court was “insufficient to establish that the court engage [d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Caufield
We agree. “[T]he minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage [d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Caufield
We agree. “[T]he minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage [d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hassett
We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because “ ‘the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage [d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice’ ” (People v Jones, 107 AD3d 1589, 1589-1590 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1075 [2013]; see People v Amir W., 107 AD3d 1639, 1640 [2013]; People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012]), and because “there is no basis upon which to conclude that the court ensured �…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hassett
We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because “ ‘the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage [d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice’ ” (People v Jones, 107 AD3d 1589, 1589-1590 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1075 [2013]; see People v Amir W., 107 AD3d 1639, 1640 [2013]; People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012]), and because “there is no basis upon which to conclude that the court ensured �…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Mobley
We agree with defendant that her waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because “the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Hamilton, 49 AD3d 1163, 1164 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Mobley
We agree with defendant that her waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because “the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Hamilton, 49 AD3d 1163, 1164 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Blacknell
We agree. “[T]he minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage [d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Jones, 107 AD3d 1589, 1589-1590 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1075 [2013]), and the court “conflated the waiver of the right to appeal with the rights forfeited by defendant based on his guilty plea” (People v Tate, 83 AD3d 1467, 1467 [2011];…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Blacknell
We agree. “[T]he minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage [d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Jones, 107 AD3d 1589, 1589-1590 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1075 [2013]), and the court “conflated the waiver of the right to appeal with the rights forfeited by defendant based on his guilty plea” (People v Tate, 83 AD3d 1467, 1467 [2011];…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McCullars
We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because “the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Hamilton, 49 AD3d 1163, 1164 [2008]; People v Brown, 296 AD2d 860, 860 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 767 [2002]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McCullars
We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because “the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Hamilton, 49 AD3d 1163, 1164 [2008]; People v Brown, 296 AD2d 860, 860 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 767 [2002]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Donaldson
Initially, we agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because “the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Doxey, 112 AD3d 1364, 1364-1365 [2013]; People v Jones, 107 AD3d 1589, 1589-1590 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1075 [2013]), and because the court “improperly confl…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Donaldson
Initially, we agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because “the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Doxey, 112 AD3d 1364, 1364-1365 [2013]; People v Jones, 107 AD3d 1589, 1589-1590 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1075 [2013]), and because the court “improperly confl…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Santos
We agree with defendant that County Court failed to engage him in an adequate colloquy to ensure that his right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice (see People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Santos
We agree with defendant that County Court failed to engage him in an adequate colloquy to ensure that his right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice (see People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Johnson
We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because “the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Hamilton, 49 AD3d 1163, 1164 [2008]; People v Brown, 296 AD2d 860, 860 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 767 [2002]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Johnson
We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because “the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Hamilton, 49 AD3d 1163, 1164 [2008]; People v Brown, 296 AD2d 860, 860 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 767 [2002]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
W., AMIR, PEOPLE v
We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because “the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage [d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Hamilton, 49 AD3d 1163, 1164 [2008]; People v Brown, 296 AD2d 860, 860 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 767 [2002]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jones
We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because “the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage [d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Hamilton, 49 AD3d 1163, 1164 [2008]; People v Brown, 296 AD2d 860, 860 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 767 [2002]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jones
We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because “the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage [d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Hamilton, 49 AD3d 1163, 1164 [2008]; People v Brown, 296 AD2d 860, 860 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 767 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see"
COKER, ANTHONY, PEOPLE v
We agree with defendant that “the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Jones, 107 AD3d 1589, 1589 , lv denied 21 NY3d 1075 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 , lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Coker
We agree with defendant that “the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage [d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Jones, 107 AD3d 1589, 1589 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1075 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Coker
We agree with defendant that “the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage [d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Jones, 107 AD3d 1589, 1589 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1075 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Tyrae Box
v.
Tyrae Box
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 15, 2012.
Cited by 36 opinions | Published
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), rendered June 5, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
[*1571] Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]), defendant contends that the waiver of the right to appeal is not valid and challenges the severity of the sentence. Although we agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because the minimal inquiry made by County Court was “insufficient to establish that the court ‘ engage [d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice’ ” (People v Brown, 296 AD2d 860 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 767 [2002]; see People v Hamilton, 49 AD3d 1163, 1164 [2008]), we nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.