Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 New York opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2015Defendant did not make a valid and enforceable waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]). 2015Defendant made a valid and enforceable waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]). | 6 | 11 |
People v. Pawaroogreen1 sentence2023Furthermore, regardless of whether defendant validly waived his right to appeal, his challenge to the restitution award is unpreserved ( see People v Pawaroo, 210 AD3d 440, 440 [2022] ["challenges to the procedure by which a restitution determination was made are waivable, while challenges to the court's power [*2]to impose restitution ... are not"]; People v Paul , 159 AD3d 657 , 658 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1120 [2018]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Callahangreen1 sentence2018These challenges are not addressed to the legality of the sentence, but to the adequacy of the procedures the court used to arrive at its sentencing determination, specifically, calculating the amount of restitution ( People v Callahan , 80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2009To the extent there was any ambiguity in the court’s colloquy with defendant, the written waiver ensured defendant understood that in addition to the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty, he was separately giving up his right to appeal as a bargained-for condition of the plea (see Ramos, 7 NY3d at 738 ; compare People v Williams, 59 AD3d 339 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 861 [2009]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2009To the extent there was any ambiguity in the court’s colloquy with defendant, the written waiver ensured defendant understood that in addition to the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty, he was separately giving up his right to appeal as a bargained-for condition of the plea (see Ramos, 7 NY3d at 738 ; compare People v Williams, 59 AD3d 339 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 861 [2009]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lopezgreen1 sentence2006Moreover, contrary to defendant’s claims, he made no statements during the plea colloquy which negated an essential element of the crime or cast any doubt upon his guilt or the voluntariness of his plea so as to compel an inquiry by the trial court beyond that conducted, which we find was sufficient to establish that defendant’s guilty plea and appeal waiver were knowing, voluntary and intelligent, and properly accepted (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 [1989]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666-667 [1988]; People v Bethea, supra at 814 ; see also People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Seebergreen1 sentence2006Moreover, contrary to defendant’s claims, he made no statements during the plea colloquy which negated an essential element of the crime or cast any doubt upon his guilt or the voluntariness of his plea so as to compel an inquiry by the trial court beyond that conducted, which we find was sufficient to establish that defendant’s guilty plea and appeal waiver were knowing, voluntary and intelligent, and properly accepted (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 [1989]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666-667 [1988]; People v Bethea, supra at 814 ; see also People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Threattgreen1 sentence2006Defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea is unpreserved and is precluded by the valid and enforceable waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Nesbitt, 23 AD3d 836, 837 [2005]; People v Tausinger, 21 AD3d 1181, 1182 [2005]; People v Bethea, 19 AD3d 813, 814 [2005]; People v Threatt, 16 AD3d 706, 707 [2005]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Betheagreen2 sentences2006Moreover, contrary to defendant’s claims, he made no statements during the plea colloquy which negated an essential element of the crime or cast any doubt upon his guilt or the voluntariness of his plea so as to compel an inquiry by the trial court beyond that conducted, which we find was sufficient to establish that defendant’s guilty plea and appeal waiver were knowing, voluntary and intelligent, and properly accepted (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 [1989]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666-667 [1988]; People v Bethea, supra at 814 ; see also People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]). 2006Defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea is unpreserved and is precluded by the valid and enforceable waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Nesbitt, 23 AD3d 836, 837 [2005]; People v Tausinger, 21 AD3d 1181, 1182 [2005]; People v Bethea, 19 AD3d 813, 814 [2005]; People v Threatt, 16 AD3d 706, 707 [2005]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Tausingergreen1 sentence2006Defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea is unpreserved and is precluded by the valid and enforceable waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Nesbitt, 23 AD3d 836, 837 [2005]; People v Tausinger, 21 AD3d 1181, 1182 [2005]; People v Bethea, 19 AD3d 813, 814 [2005]; People v Threatt, 16 AD3d 706, 707 [2005]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nesbittgreen1 sentence2006Defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea is unpreserved and is precluded by the valid and enforceable waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Nesbitt, 23 AD3d 836, 837 [2005]; People v Tausinger, 21 AD3d 1181, 1182 [2005]; People v Bethea, 19 AD3d 813, 814 [2005]; People v Threatt, 16 AD3d 706, 707 [2005]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Ramos
green
2 sentences2009Defendant made a valid and enforceable waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]). 2008Defendant’s written and oral waivers, taken together, establish a valid and enforceable waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]). | 6 | 2006–2009 |
People v. Bryant
green
2 sentences2019The oral colloquy and written waiver, which the court confirmed that defendant had discussed with defense counsel and understood, sufficiently ensured that defendant understood the rights that he was waiving ( see People v Bryant , 28 NY3d 1094 [2016]). 2018The oral colloquy sufficiently ensured that defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate from the other trial rights automatically forfeited by pleading guilty, and it met or exceeded the minimum standards for such a colloquy ( see People v Bryant , 28 NY3d 1094 [2016]). | 3 | 2018–2019 |
PEOPLE EX REL. ACKRIDGE v. Barkley
green
1 sentence2009To the extent there was any ambiguity in the court’s colloquy with defendant, the written waiver ensured defendant understood that in addition to the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty, he was separately giving up his right to appeal as a bargained-for condition of the plea (see Ramos, 7 NY3d at 738 ; compare People v Williams, 59 AD3d 339 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 861 [2009]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Moissett
green
1 sentence2009Defendant had extensive discussions with counsel prior to the plea (see People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909 [1990]), and the court did not conflate the right to appeal with the rights automatically waived by pleading guilty. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Seaberg
green
1 sentence2006Moreover, contrary to defendant’s claims, he made no statements during the plea colloquy which negated an essential element of the crime or cast any doubt upon his guilt or the voluntariness of his plea so as to compel an inquiry by the trial court beyond that conducted, which we find was sufficient to establish that defendant’s guilty plea and appeal waiver were knowing, voluntary and intelligent, and properly accepted (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 [1989]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666-667 [1988]; People v Bethea, supra at 814 ; see also People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.