People v. Norton, 96 A.D.3d 1651 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Norton, 96 A.D.3d 1651 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Z.H. (nyappdiv, 2020-12-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Z.H.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
The court referred to a waiver of the right to appeal during the plea proceeding, but no oral waiver was elicited from defendant ( see People v Norton , 96 AD3d 1651, 1651-1652 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 999 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gonzalez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Moreover, we note that the written waiver is inadequate inasmuch as it did not distinguish the right to appeal from the other rights given up when pleading guilty ( see People v Norton , 96 AD3d 1651, 1652 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 999 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Willis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Furthermore, "neither the written waiver of the right to appeal in the record nor the court's brief mention of that waiver during the plea proceeding distinguished the waiver of the right to appeal from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty" ( People v Norton , 96 AD3d 1651, 1652 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 999 [2012]; see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Alston , 101 AD3d 1672 , 1672 [4th Dept 2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Alston
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
We conclude that the single reference by Supreme Court to the signed written waiver, i.e., whether defendant understood what he had signed, is not sufficient to establish that defendant understood that he was waiving a right that otherwise would have survived the guilty plea (see People v Cooper, 19 NY3d 501, 510 [2012]; People v Norton, 96 AD3d 1651, 1651-1652 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 999 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Alston
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
We conclude that the single reference by Supreme Court to the signed written waiver, i.e., whether defendant understood what he had signed, is not sufficient to establish that defendant understood that he was waiving a right that otherwise would have survived the guilty plea (see People v Cooper, 19 NY3d 501, 510 [2012]; People v Norton, 96 AD3d 1651, 1651-1652 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 999 [2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Darnell Norton
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 15, 2012.
96 A.D.3d 1651
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered May 6, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree. The judgment was affirmed by order of this Court entered September 30, 2011 (87 AD3d 1310 [2011]), and defendant on December 16, 2011 was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the order of this Court (18 NY3d 861), and the Court of Appeals on May 8, 2012 reversed the order and remitted the case to this Court for clarification of the basis of this Court’s decision (19 NY3d 842 [2012]).

Now, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals,

It is hereby ordered that, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In a prior appeal (People v Norton, 87 AD3d 1310 [2011], revd sub nom., People v Gilliam 19 NY3d 842 [2012]), we summarily affirmed the judgment convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [2]). Defendant had contended that his sentence was unduly harsh and severe. In reversing our order, the Court of Appeals concluded that this Court may not summarily affirm the judgment “without indicating whether [we] relied on the waiver [of the right to appeal] or determined that the sentencing claim lacked merit” (19 NY3d at 844). The Court remitted the matter to this Court “for clarification of the basis of [our] decision” (id.).

Upon remittal, we clarify that we previously reviewed the merits of defendant’s contention, having determined that there was no valid waiver of the right to appeal, and we concluded that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Although Supreme Court referred to a waiver of the right to appeal at the[*1652] time of the plea, no oral waiver was elicited from defendant. In addition, neither the written waiver of the right to appeal in the record nor the court’s brief mention of that waiver during the plea proceeding distinguished the waiver of the right to appeal from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty. Consequently, the record failed to “establish that the defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.