People v. Jackson, 99 A.D.3d 1240 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Jackson, 99 A.D.3d 1240 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
28 citation events (28 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: COOPER, DONALD R., PEOPLE v (nyappdiv, 2016-02-11)
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) COOPER, DONALD R., PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
During the plea colloquy, County Court “conflated the appeal waiver with the rights automatically waived by the guilty plea” (People v Martin, 88 AD3d 473, 474 , affd 19 NY3d 914 ) and, thus, “the record fails to establish that defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (Jackson, 99 AD3d at 1241 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cooper (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is not valid (see People v Jackson, 99 AD3d 1240, 1240-1241 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cooper (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is not valid (see People v Jackson, 99 AD3d 1240, 1240-1241 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Huddleston (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is not valid (see People v Jackson, 99 AD3d 1240, 1240-1241 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]; see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), inasmuch as “the record fails to establish that defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (Jackson, 99 AD3d at 1241 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Huddleston (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is not valid (see People v Jackson, 99 AD3d 1240, 1240-1241 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]; see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), inasmuch as “the record fails to establish that defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (Jackson, 99 AD3d at 1241 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sanborn (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is not valid (see People v Jackson, 99 AD3d 1240, 1240-1241 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sanborn (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is not valid (see People v Jackson, 99 AD3d 1240, 1240-1241 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SANBORN, JAMISON C., PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
During the plea colloquy, County Court “conflated the appeal waiver with the rights automatically waived by the guilty plea” (People v Martin, 88 AD3d 473, 474 , affd 19 NY3d 914 ; see People v Hawkins, 94 AD3d 1439, 1439-1440 , lv denied 19 NY3d 974 ; People v Tate, 83 AD3d 1467, 1467 ), and thus “the record fails to establish that defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (Jackson, 99 AD3d at 1241 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited "see" HUDDLESTON, ADRIAN, PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is not valid (see People v Jackson, 99 AD3d 1240, 1240-1241 , lv denied 20 NY3d 987 ; see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 ), inasmuch as “the record fails to establish that defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (Jackson, 99 AD3d at 1241 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Goforth
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant’s further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel “does not survive his plea of guilty inasmuch as ‘[t]here is no showing that the plea bargaining process was infected by any allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of his attorney[’s] allegedly poor performance’ ” (People v Fomby, 42 AD3d 894, 895 [2007]; see People v Jackson, 99 AD3d 1240, 1240 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" GOFORTH, MATTHEW, PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant’s further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel “does not survive his plea of guilty inasmuch as ‘[t]here is no showing that the plea bargaining process was infected by any allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of his attorney[’s] allegedly poor performance’ ” (People v Fomby, 42 AD3d 894, 895 ; see People v Jackson, 99 AD3d 1240, 1240 , lv denied 20 NY3d 987 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Goforth
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant’s further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel “does not survive his plea of guilty inasmuch as ‘[t]here is no showing that the plea bargaining process was infected by any allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of his attorney[’s] allegedly poor performance’ ” (People v Fomby, 42 AD3d 894, 895 [2007]; see People v Jackson, 99 AD3d 1240, 1240 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Jamieson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
We agree with defendant that his purported waiver of the right to appeal is unenforceable because the record does not establish that County Court “ ‘engaged in a full and adequate colloquy, and [that] defendant expressly waived [his] right to appeal without limitation’ ” (People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]; see People v Jackson, 99 AD3d 1240 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Jamieson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
We agree with defendant that his purported waiver of the right to appeal is unenforceable because the record does not establish that County Court “ ‘engaged in a full and adequate colloquy, and [that] defendant expressly waived [his] right to appeal without limitation’ ” (People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]; see People v Jackson, 99 AD3d 1240 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" JAMIESON, CHARLES G., PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
We agree with defendant that his purported waiver of the right to appeal is unenforceable because the record does not establish that County Court “ ‘engaged in a full and adequate colloquy, and [that] defendant expressly waived [his] right to appeal without limitation’ ” (People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 ; see People v Jackson, 99 AD3d 1240 , ___).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
David Jackson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 5, 2012.
99 A.D.3d 1240
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]), defendant contends that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground and thus has failed to preserve his contention for our review (see People v Francis, 53 AD3d 1112, 1113 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 736 [2008]). This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). 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]). Defendant’s further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel does not survive his plea of guilty inasmuch as “[t]here is no showing that the plea bargaining process was infected by any allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of his attorney's] allegedly poor performance” (People v Burke, 256 AD2d 1244, 1244 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 851 [1999]; see People v Barnes, 32 AD3d 1250, 1251 [2006]).

We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and thus does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the period of postrelease supervision. “[I]t is not clear that ‘the trial court engaged in a full and adequate colloquy, and [that] defendant expressly waived [his] right to ap[*1241] peal without limitation’ ” (People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]; see generally People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]), and defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal also is invalid “inasmuch as the record fails to establish that ‘defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty’ ” (People v Balkum, 71 AD3d 1594, 1595 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 885 [2010]; see People v Daniels, 68 AD3d 1711, 1712 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 887 [2010]; People v Williams, 59 AD3d 339, 340 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 861 [2009]). Nevertheless, we reject defendant’s challenge to the severity of the period of postrelease supervision. Present — Fahey, J.P, Peradotto, Garni and Sconiers, JJ.