People v. Carroll, 148 A.D.3d 1546 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · Go Syfert
People v. Carroll, 148 A.D.3d 1546 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Gonzalez (nyappdiv, 2020-07-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gonzalez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid inasmuch as there is no indication that the court obtained a knowing and voluntary waiver of that right at the time defendant entered the plea ( see People v Carroll , 148 AD3d 1546, 1546-1547 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1077 [2017]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Homer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
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 Carroll, 148 AD3d 1546, 1546 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Harris, 148 AD3d 1694, 1694 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1032 [May 26, 2017]; cf. People v Massey, 149 AD3d 1524, 1525 [2017]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Dionte Carroll
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 24, 2017.
148 A.D.3d 1546
Centra, Curran, Lindley, Nemoyer, Troutman.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Thomas J. Miller, J.), rendered February 27, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession 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 criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1]). 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]). Contrary to the People’s contention, the written waiver of the right to appeal, which was not signed until sentencing, does not serve to validate the otherwise inadequate oral waiver where, as here, “there is no indication that [the court] obtained a knowing and[*1547] voluntary waiver of that right at the time of the plea” (People v Sims, 129 AD3d 1509, 1510 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 935 [2015]; see People v Lawson [appeal No. 7], 124 AD3d 1249, 1250 [2015]). We nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Present — Centra, J.P., Lindley, NeMoyer, Curran and Troutman, JJ.