green
Positive treatment
Issue: allocution concerning waiverNY ↗
Issue: extensive hearingNY ↗
Issue: oral waiverNY ↗
Issue: possible intoxication defenseNY ↗
35.8 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases ·
…conviction, sentence, and any proceedings that may result from this prosecution.
at p. 1412
⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases ·
…does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence because 'no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant's right to appeal' with respect to his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal any i…
at p. 1412
✓
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 39 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Nicpon
We agree with defendant that her "waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass [her] challenge to the severity of the sentence because no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant's right to appeal' with respect to [her] conviction that [she] was also waiving [her] right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence" ( People v Peterson , 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [4th Dept 2013]; see People v Grucza , 145 AD3d 1505, 1506 [4th Dept 2016]; see generally People v Maracle , 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McArthur
Although no mention was made on the record during the plea colloquy that defendant was waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence (see People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]), here the oral waiver was accompanied by a written plea agreement that provided that defendant was waiving his right to ap peal his “conviction, sentence, and any proceedings that may result from this prosecution.” Moreover, County Court conducted an extensive inquiry that established that defendant had reviewed and understood the written plea agreement, including its waiver-o…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McArthur
Although no mention was made on the record during the plea colloquy that defendant was waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence (see People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]), here the oral waiver was accompanied by a written plea agreement that provided that defendant was waiving his right to ap peal his “conviction, sentence, and any proceedings that may result from this prosecution.” Moreover, County Court conducted an extensive inquiry that established that defendant had reviewed and understood the written plea agreement, including its waiver-o…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McArthur
Although no mention was made on the record during the plea colloquy that defendant was waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence (see People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]), here the oral waiver was accompanied by a written plea agreement that provided that defendant was waiving his right to ap peal his “conviction, sentence, and any proceedings that may result from this prosecution.” Moreover, County Court conducted an extensive inquiry that established that defendant had reviewed and understood the written plea agreement, including its waiver-o…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Culkin
Although the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), we conclude that the valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass defendant’s challenge to the sentence inasmuch as Supreme Court failed to advise defendant “that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence” (People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Culkin
Although the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), we conclude that the valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass defendant’s challenge to the sentence inasmuch as Supreme Court failed to advise defendant “that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence” (People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Williams
As the People correctly concede, the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Williams
As the People correctly concede, the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Brailsford
Although we agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]), we nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Brailsford
Although we agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]), we nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Saeli
We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence. “[N]o mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal the harshness of his sentence” (People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 [2013]; see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]; People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Saeli
We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence. “[N]o mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal the harshness of his sentence” (People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 [2013]; see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]; People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Donaldson
We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence inasmuch as Supreme Court did not explain during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of the right to appeal that he was waiving the right to appeal any issue regarding the severity of the sentence (see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]; People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Donaldson
We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence inasmuch as Supreme Court did not explain during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of the right to appeal that he was waiving the right to appeal any issue regarding the severity of the sentence (see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]; People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Tetrault
We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because, during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction, County Court did not mention “that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence” (People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]; see People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Tetrault
We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because, during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction, County Court did not mention “that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence” (People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]; see People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Banks
We agree with defendant that, in each appeal, the waiver of the right to appeal “does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence because ‘no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal’ with respect to his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence” (People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]; see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Banks
We agree with defendant that, in each appeal, the waiver of the right to appeal “does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence because ‘no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal’ with respect to his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence” (People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]; see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Harper
We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence because no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence (see People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]; People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Howard
During the plea colloquy, Supreme Court advised him that he was waiving his right to appeal from the conviction only and failed to make any reference to the effect that the waiver would have on any challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]; People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Howard
During the plea colloquy, Supreme Court advised him that he was waiving his right to appeal from the conviction only and failed to make any reference to the effect that the waiver would have on any challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]; People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Harper
We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence because no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence (see People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]; People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Arney
Finally, we agree with defendant that “the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence because ‘no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defend ant’s right to appeal’ with respect to his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence” (People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]; see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 927-928 [2012]; People v Milon, 114 AD3d 1130, 1131 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Arney
Finally, we agree with defendant that “the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence because ‘no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defend ant’s right to appeal’ with respect to his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence” (People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]; see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 927-928 [2012]; People v Milon, 114 AD3d 1130, 1131 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
WARE, III, JACOB E., PEOPLE v
Finally, although defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 927 [2012]; People v Milon, 114 AD3d 1130, 1131 [2014]; People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]), we nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Banks
We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass her challenge to the severity of the sentence inasmuch as “ ‘no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal’ with respect to [her] conviction that [she] was also waiving [her] right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence” (People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]; see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Banks
We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass her challenge to the severity of the sentence inasmuch as “ ‘no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal’ with respect to [her] conviction that [she] was also waiving [her] right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence” (People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]; see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ayala
Defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of his sentence because “ ‘no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal’ with respect to his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence” (People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]; see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]; People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ayala
Defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of his sentence because “ ‘no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal’ with respect to his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence” (People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]; see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]; People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 [2013]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Richardson
We conclude, however, that the valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass the challenge to the severity of the sentence in each appeal inasmuch as Supreme Court failed to advise defendant “that he was also waiving his right to appeal the harshness of his sentence” (People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 [2013]; see People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]).
discussed
Cited "see"
RICHARDSON, ERIC L., PEOPLE v
We conclude, however, that the valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass the challenge to the severity of the sentence in each appeal inasmuch as Supreme Court failed to advise defendant “that he was also waiving his right to appeal the harshness of his sentence” (People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 , lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 ; see People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Richardson
We conclude, however, that the valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass the challenge to the severity of the sentence in each appeal inasmuch as Supreme Court failed to advise defendant “that he was also waiving his right to appeal the harshness of his sentence” (People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 [2013]; see People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]).
discussed
Cited "see"
KELLOGG, DANIELLE, PEOPLE v
Although the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 ), we conclude that the valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass the challenge to the severity of the sentence because “no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal [her] conviction that [she] was also waiving [her] right to appeal the harshness of [her] sentence” (People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 , lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 ; see People…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Kellogg
Although the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), we conclude that the valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass the challenge to the severity of the sentence because “no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal [her] conviction that [she] was also waiving [her] right to appeal the harshness of [her] sentence” (People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 …
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Kellogg
Although the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), we conclude that the valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass the challenge to the severity of the sentence because “no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal [her] conviction that [she] was also waiving [her] right to appeal the harshness of [her] sentence” (People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 …
discussed
Cited "see"
MARTIN, WILLIE, PEOPLE v
“While it is evident that defendant waived [his] right to appeal [his] conviction, there is no indication in the record that defendant waived the right to appeal the harshness of [his] sentence” (People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 ; see People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Martin
“While it is evident that defendant waived [his] right to appeal [his] conviction, there is no indication in the record that defendant waived the right to appeal the harshness of [his] sentence” (People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]; see People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Martin
“While it is evident that defendant waived [his] right to appeal [his] conviction, there is no indication in the record that defendant waived the right to appeal the harshness of [his] sentence” (People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]; see People v Peterson, 111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]).
discussed
Cited "see"
DILAURA, JOSEPH M., PEOPLE v
Although the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 ), we conclude that the valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass the challenge to the severity of the sentence because “no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal the harshness of his sentence” (People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 , lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 ; see People v Peters…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Larry M. Peterson
v.
Larry M. Peterson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 15, 2013.
Cited by 53 opinions | Published
Appeal from a judgment of the Cattaraugus County Court (M. William Boiler, A.J.), rendered May 14, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.39 [1]). We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence because “no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal” with respect to his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence (People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 [2013]; see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]). We nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Smith, J.P, Centra, Fahey, Garni and Whalen, JJ.