guilty plea and appeal waiver in New York

2025The consent of the district attorney shall be endorsed thereon." "Compliance with this unequivocal dictate is indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver and the failure to adhere to this strict procedure is a jurisdictional defect which survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver and need not be preserved" ( People v Berry , 222 AD3d 1109, 1109-1110 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Verrone , 266 AD2d 16, 18 [1st Dept 1999], appeal withdrawn 94 NY2d 868 [1999]).

2025The consent of the district attorney shall be endorsed thereon." "Compliance with this unequivocal dictate is indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver and the failure to adhere to this strict procedure is a jurisdictional defect which survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver and need not be preserved" ( People v Berry , 222 AD3d 1109, 1109-1110 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Verrone , 266 AD2d 16, 18 [1st Dept 1999], appeal withdrawn 94 NY2d 868 [1999]).

2024"Compliance with this unequivocal [constitutional and statutory] dictate is indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver and the failure to adhere to this strict procedure is a jurisdictional defect which survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver and need not be preserved for review by a motion to withdraw the plea" ( People v Donnelly , 23 AD3d 921, 922 [3d Dept 2005] [citations and footnote omitted]; see People v Solomon , 39 NY3d 1114 , 1115 [2023]; People v Berry , 222 AD3d 1109, 1109-1110 [3d Dept 2023]).

2023"Compliance with this unequivocal dictate is indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver and the failure to adhere to this strict procedure is a jurisdictional defect which survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver and need not be preserved for review by a motion to withdraw the plea" ( People v Donnelly , 23 AD3d 921, 922 [3d Dept 2005] [citations and footnote omitted]; see People v Rickman , 208 AD3d 1389, 1390 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Eulo , 156 AD3d 720, 720-721 [2d Dept 2017]).

2023Moreover, neither the written waiver of indictment, to which the District Attorney executed consent on March 11, 2019, nor County Court's undated order approving the waiver, indicates that the waiver was signed in open court ( compare People v Myers , 32 NY3d at 21 ; People v Bryant , 207 AD3d 886, 888 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Ramos , 189 AD3d 586 , 586 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied [*2] 36 NY3d 1059 [2021]).

2023"Moreover, neither the written waiver of indictment, to which the District Attorney executed consent on [October 14, 2020], nor County Court's undated order approving the waiver, indicates that the waiver was signed in open court" on November 19, 2020 ( id .; compare People v Myers , 32 NY3d at 21 ; People v Bryant , 207 AD3d 886, 888 [3d Dept 2022]).

2020Defendant puts forth a constitutional speedy trial argument that survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver ( see People v Callahan , 80 NY2d 273, 282 [1992]; People v Shufelt , 161 AD3d 1451 , 1451-1452 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1008 [2018]; People v Gardiner , 159 AD3d 1234 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1082 [2018]).

2007We reject defendant’s claim that due diligence claims under CPL 410.30 are of constitutional dimension that “go to the very heart of the process” (People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 230 [2000]) or that his other arguments fall under the rubric of sentence legality (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 280 [1992]).

2006Next, while a challenge to a jurisdictional defect in an indictment survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver (see People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 230 [2000]; People v Sayles, 292 AD2d 641, 643 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 681 [2002]), defendant’s challenge to the indictment raises no jurisdictional defects and we find none (see People v Hansen, supra at 231).

2006Next, while a challenge to a jurisdictional defect in an indictment survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver (see People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 230 [2000]; People v Sayles, 292 AD2d 641, 643 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 681 [2002]), defendant’s challenge to the indictment raises no jurisdictional defects and we find none (see People v Hansen, supra at 231).

2023Moreover, neither the written waiver of indictment, to which the District Attorney executed consent on March 11, 2019, nor County Court's undated order approving the waiver, indicates that the waiver was signed in open court ( compare People v Myers , 32 NY3d at 21 ; People v Bryant , 207 AD3d 886, 888 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Ramos , 189 AD3d 586 , 586 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied [*2] 36 NY3d 1059 [2021]).

2023"Moreover, neither the written waiver of indictment, to which the District Attorney executed consent on [October 14, 2020], nor County Court's undated order approving the waiver, indicates that the waiver was signed in open court" on November 19, 2020 ( id .; compare People v Myers , 32 NY3d at 21 ; People v Bryant , 207 AD3d 886, 888 [3d Dept 2022]).

2025The consent of the district attorney shall be endorsed thereon." "Compliance with this unequivocal dictate is indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver and the failure to adhere to this strict procedure is a jurisdictional defect which survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver and need not be preserved" ( People v Berry , 222 AD3d 1109, 1109-1110 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Verrone , 266 AD2d 16, 18 [1st Dept 1999], appeal withdrawn 94 NY2d 868 [1999]).

2025The consent of the district attorney shall be endorsed thereon." "Compliance with this unequivocal dictate is indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver and the failure to adhere to this strict procedure is a jurisdictional defect which survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver and need not be preserved" ( People v Berry , 222 AD3d 1109, 1109-1110 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Verrone , 266 AD2d 16, 18 [1st Dept 1999], appeal withdrawn 94 NY2d 868 [1999]).

2023"Compliance with this unequivocal dictate is indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver and the failure to adhere to this strict procedure is a jurisdictional defect which survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver and need not be preserved for review by a motion to withdraw the plea" ( People v Donnelly , 23 AD3d 921, 922 [3d Dept 2005] [citations and footnote omitted]; see People v Rickman , 208 AD3d 1389, 1390 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Eulo , 156 AD3d 720, 720-721 [2d Dept 2017]).

2023"Compliance with this unequivocal dictate is indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver and the failure to adhere to this strict procedure is a jurisdictional defect which survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver and need not be preserved for review by a motion to withdraw the plea" ( People v Donnelly , 23 AD3d 921, 922 [3d Dept 2005] [citations and footnote omitted]; see People v Rickman , 208 AD3d 1389, 1390 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Eulo , 156 AD3d 720, 720-721 [2d Dept 2017]).

2018Defendant's challenges to the evidence underlying the charge and to the sufficiency of the factual allegations are nonjurisdictional in nature and, thus, precluded by the guilty plea and appeal waiver ( see People v Brice , 146 AD3d at 1154 ; People v Young , 100 AD3d 1186 , 1188 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1021 [2013]; People v George , 261 AD2d 711, 713 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1018 [1999]).

2017While a defendant may waive his or her right to appeal from a jury verdict, and may do so in conjunction with a guilty plea and appeal waiver to an unrelated indictment (see People v Wolz, 112 AD3d 1150 , 1151-1152 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1026 [2014]; People v Morales, 68 AD3d 1356, 1356-1357 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 803 [2010]), the record here fails to reflect that defendant had a “full appreciation of the consequences of such waiver [s]” so as to establish that they were knowing, voluntary and intelligent (People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation

2017While a defendant may waive his or her right to appeal from a jury verdict, and may do so in conjunction with a guilty plea and appeal waiver to an unrelated indictment (see People v Wolz, 112 AD3d 1150 , 1151-1152 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1026 [2014]; People v Morales, 68 AD3d 1356, 1356-1357 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 803 [2010]), the record here fails to reflect that defendant had a “full appreciation of the consequences of such waiver [s]” so as to establish that they were knowing, voluntary and intelligent (People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation

2017While a defendant may waive his or her right to appeal from a jury verdict, and may do so in conjunction with a guilty plea and appeal waiver to an unrelated indictment (see People v Wolz, 112 AD3d 1150 , 1151-1152 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1026 [2014]; People v Morales, 68 AD3d 1356, 1356-1357 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 803 [2010]), the record here fails to reflect that defendant had a “full appreciation of the consequences of such waiver [s]” so as to establish that they were knowing, voluntary and intelligent (People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation

2017To that end, while Supreme Court made clear during the allocution that the waivers of appeal applied to both the jury verdict and the guilty plea, the court alternated between the two matters, rendering the distinctions between them unclear and confusing (compare People v Wolz, 112 AD3d at 1151-1152).

2017While a defendant may waive his or her right to appeal from a jury verdict, and may do so in conjunction with a guilty plea and appeal waiver to an unrelated indictment (see People v Wolz, 112 AD3d 1150 , 1151-1152 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1026 [2014]; People v Morales, 68 AD3d 1356, 1356-1357 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 803 [2010]), the record here fails to reflect that defendant had a “full appreciation of the consequences of such waiver [s]” so as to establish that they were knowing, voluntary and intelligent (People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation

2017While a defendant may waive his or her right to appeal from a jury verdict, and may do so in conjunction with a guilty plea and appeal waiver to an unrelated indictment (see People v Wolz, 112 AD3d 1150 , 1151-1152 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1026 [2014]; People v Morales, 68 AD3d 1356, 1356-1357 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 803 [2010]), the record here fails to reflect that defendant had a “full appreciation of the consequences of such waiver [s]” so as to establish that they were knowing, voluntary and intelligent (People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation

2007In our view, defendant’s admission and appeal waiver in this probation violation proceeding * should have no less effect than a guilty plea and appeal waiver, which in criminal prosecutions extinguish comparable claims to statutory speedy trial violations (see People v Friscia, 51 NY2d 845, 847 [1980]; People v Hernandez, 21 AD3d 1214, 1215 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 883 [2005]) or statute of limitations defenses (see People v Parilla, 8 NY3d 654, 659 [2007]).

2007In our view, defendant’s admission and appeal waiver in this probation violation proceeding * should have no less effect than a guilty plea and appeal waiver, which in criminal prosecutions extinguish comparable claims to statutory speedy trial violations (see People v Friscia, 51 NY2d 845, 847 [1980]; People v Hernandez, 21 AD3d 1214, 1215 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 883 [2005]) or statute of limitations defenses (see People v Parilla, 8 NY3d 654, 659 [2007]).

2007In our view, defendant’s admission and appeal waiver in this probation violation proceeding * should have no less effect than a guilty plea and appeal waiver, which in criminal prosecutions extinguish comparable claims to statutory speedy trial violations (see People v Friscia, 51 NY2d 845, 847 [1980]; People v Hernandez, 21 AD3d 1214, 1215 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 883 [2005]) or statute of limitations defenses (see People v Parilla, 8 NY3d 654, 659 [2007]).

2006Next, while a challenge to a jurisdictional defect in an indictment survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver (see People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 230 [2000]; People v Sayles, 292 AD2d 641, 643 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 681 [2002]), defendant’s challenge to the indictment raises no jurisdictional defects and we find none (see People v Hansen, supra at 231).

2005Compliance with this unequivocal dictate is indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver (see People v Page, 88 NY2d 1, 6-10 [1996]) and the failure to adhere to this strict procedure is a jurisdictional defect which survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver * and need not be preserved for review by a motion to withdraw the plea (see People v Libby, 246 AD2d 669, 670 [1998]; see also People v Boston, supra at 587, 589 n).

2005Compliance with this unequivocal dictate is indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver (see People v Page, 88 NY2d 1, 6-10 [1996]) and the failure to adhere to this strict procedure is a jurisdictional defect which survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver * and need not be preserved for review by a motion to withdraw the plea (see People v Libby, 246 AD2d 669, 670 [1998]; see also People v Boston, supra at 587, 589 n).

2005Compliance with this unequivocal dictate is indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver (see People v Page, 88 NY2d 1, 6-10 [1996]) and the failure to adhere to this strict procedure is a jurisdictional defect which survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver * and need not be preserved for review by a motion to withdraw the plea (see People v Libby, 246 AD2d 669, 670 [1998]; see also People v Boston, supra at 587, 589 n).