green
Positive treatment
23.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ubanwa
(2×)
A " 'defendant has been afforded meaningful representation when he or she received an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt upon the apparent effectiveness of [defense] counsel' " ( People v Dale , 142 AD3d 1287, 1290 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Alfonso
Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his constitutional double jeopardy claim ( see People v Muniz , 91 NY2d 570, 574-575 [1998]; People v Rivera , 226 AD3d 929, 931 [2d Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1021 [2024]; People v Dale , 142 AD3d 1287, 1290 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rivera
To the extent that defendant contends that certain conversations and interactions with defense counsel gave rise to ineffective assistance of counsel and also established that his plea was involuntary, such contentions "are based on matters outside the record and must therefore be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440" ( Dale , 142 AD3d at 1290 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Spoor , 148 AD3d 1795, 1797 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1134 [2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Massey
Moreover, defendant “receive [d] an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of [defense] counsel” (Dale, 142 AD3d at 1290 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Massey
Moreover, defendant “receive [d] an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of [defense] counsel” (Dale, 142 AD3d at 1290 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MASSEY, JERRY, PEOPLE v
Moreover, defendant “receive[d] an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of [defense] counsel” (Dale, 142 AD3d at 1290 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Massey
Moreover, defendant “receive [d] an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of [defense] counsel” (Dale, 142 AD3d at 1290 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Johnson
That contention survives his guilty plea and valid waiver of the right to appeal "only if the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or [if] defendant entered the plea because of [the] attorney['s] allegedly poor performance" ( People v Johnson , 229 AD3d 1300 , 1302 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1020 [2024] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Williams , 246 AD3d 1370 , 1371 [4th Dept 2026], lv denied — NY3d — [2026]). "[I]n the context of a guilty plea, a defendant has been afforded meaningful representation when [they] receive[d] …
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Colon
Defendant's cursory protestations of innocence are "unsupported by the record and belied by [defendant's] statements during the plea colloquy" ( People v Gerena , 174 AD3d 1428 , 1430 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 981 [2019]; see generally People v Dale , 142 AD3d 1287 , 1289 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]) and his prior admissions—under oath—in Family Court.
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Osborn
Defendant's contention that he was coerced into pleading guilty is "unsupported by the record and belied by his statements during the plea colloquy" ( People v Gerena , 174 AD3d 1428 , 1430 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 981 [2019]; see People v Dale , 142 AD3d 1287 , 1289 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Spencer
That contention involves "discussions between defendant and his attorney outside the record on appeal, and it must therefore be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10" ( People v Manning , 151 AD3d 1936, 1938 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 951 [2017]; see People v Dale , 142 AD3d 1287 , 1290 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]; People v Stachnik , 101 AD3d 1590 , 1591 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1104 [2013]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Griffith
Even assuming, arguendo, that those contentions are preserved for our review, we conclude that they are "unsupported by the record and belied by [defendant's] statements during the plea colloquy" ( People v Gerena , 174 AD3d 1428 , 1430 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 981 [2019]; see People v Dale , 142 AD3d 1287 , 1289 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Wilson
In any event, defendant's contention lacks merit inasmuch as it is based solely on an unsupported claim of innocence ( see People v Haffiz , 19 NY3d 883, 884-885 [2012]; see generally People v Dixon , 29 NY2d 55, 57 [1971]), which is belied by his statements during the plea colloquy ( see People v Dale , 142 AD3d 1287 , 1289 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]; see generally Dixon , 29 NY2d at 57 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Spencer
Here, however, defendant's contention "involves matters outside the record on appeal and, thus, it must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440" ( People v Bradford , 126 AD3d 1374 , 1375 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 926 [2015]; see People v Dale , 142 AD3d 1287 , 1290 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]; People v Wilson , 49 AD3d 1224, 1225 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 966 [2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Sarah J. Cushman, (Appeal No. 2.)
v.
Sarah J. Cushman, (Appeal No. 2.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 30, 2016.
Carni, Centra, Peradotto, Smith, Whalen.
Published
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joanne M. Winslow, J.), rendered November 13, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Same memorandum as in People v Cushman ([appeal No. 1] 142 AD3d 1286 [2016]).
Present — Whalen, P.J., Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Carni, JJ.