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.
12 New York opinions name it 3 courts 2012–2024 2 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. Plunkettgreen2 sentences2017Moreover, a plea of guilty “ ‘should not be permitted to be used as a device for a defendant to avoid a trial while maintaining a claim of factual innocence’ ” (People v Conway, 118 AD3d 1290 , 1290 [2014], quoting People v Plunkett, 19 NY3d 400, 406 [2012]), and we conclude that the same is true of an Alford plea (see generally Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 475 [2000]). 2017Moreover, a plea of guilty “ ‘should not be permitted to be used as a device for a defendant to avoid a trial while maintaining a claim of factual innocence’ ” (People v Conway, 118 AD3d 1290 , 1290 [2014], quoting People v Plunkett, 19 NY3d 400, 406 [2012]), and we conclude that the same is true of an Alford plea (see generally Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 475 [2000]). | 7 | 9 |
People v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2017The Court recounted how, in People v Thomas ( 53 NY2d 338, 340 [1981]), it said that the solemn act of entering a plea, itself sufficing as a conviction, should not be permitted to be used as a device for a defendant to avoid a trial while maintaining a claim of factual innocence (see People v Plunkett, 19 NY3d at 406 ). 2014Indeed, “[t]he ‘solemn act’ of entering a plea, itself sufficing as a conviction, . . . should not be permitted to be used as a device for a defendant to avoid a trial while maintaining a claim of factual innocence” (People v Plunkett, 19 NY3d 400, 406 [2012], quoting People v Thomas, 53 NY2d 338, 345 [1981]). | 3 | 4 |
106454 People v. Larockgreen2 sentences2017Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s contention survived the plea, we conclude that defendant has “failed to demonstrate [his] factual innocence” (People v Caldavado, 26 NY3d 1034, 1037 [2015]; see People v Larock, 139 AD3d 1241, 1244 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 932 [2016]). 2017Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s contention survived the plea, we conclude that defendant has “failed to demonstrate [his] factual innocence” (People v Caldavado, 26 NY3d 1034, 1037 [2015]; see People v Larock, 139 AD3d 1241, 1244 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 932 [2016]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Larockgreen2 sentences2017Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s contention survived the plea, we conclude that defendant has “failed to demonstrate [his] factual innocence” (People v Caldavado, 26 NY3d 1034, 1037 [2015]; see People v Larock, 139 AD3d 1241, 1244 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 932 [2016]). 2017Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s contention survived the plea, we conclude that defendant has “failed to demonstrate [his] factual innocence” (People v Caldavado, 26 NY3d 1034, 1037 [2015]; see People v Larock, 139 AD3d 1241, 1244 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 932 [2016]). | 3 | 3 |
MATTER OF SILMON v. Travisgreen2 sentences2017Moreover, a plea of guilty “ ‘should not be permitted to be used as a device for a defendant to avoid a trial while maintaining a claim of factual innocence’ ” (People v Conway, 118 AD3d 1290 , 1290 [2014], quoting People v Plunkett, 19 NY3d 400, 406 [2012]), and we conclude that the same is true of an Alford plea (see generally Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 475 [2000]). 2017Moreover, a plea of guilty “ ‘should not be permitted to be used as a device for a defendant to avoid a trial while maintaining a claim of factual innocence’ ” (People v Conway, 118 AD3d 1290 , 1290 [2014], quoting People v Plunkett, 19 NY3d 400, 406 [2012]), and we conclude that the same is true of an Alford plea (see generally Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 475 [2000]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Caldavadogreen2 sentences2017Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s contention survived the plea, we conclude that defendant has “failed to demonstrate [his] factual innocence” (People v Caldavado, 26 NY3d 1034, 1037 [2015]; see People v Larock, 139 AD3d 1241, 1244 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 932 [2016]). 2017Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s contention survived the plea, we conclude that defendant has “failed to demonstrate [his] factual innocence” (People v Caldavado, 26 NY3d 1034, 1037 [2015]; see People v Larock, 139 AD3d 1241, 1244 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 932 [2016]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Condegreen1 sentence2017Later that year, in Conway , the Fourth Department stated, “[a]lthough the court erred in determining that a claim of actual innocence may not properly be raised pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (h) (see People v Hamilton, 115 AD3d 12, 15 [2014]), the court properly determined that defendant’s claim of actual innocence was ‘belied by his admission of guilt during the plea colloquy’ ” (People v Conway, 118 AD3d at 1290 , quoting People v Conde, 34 AD3d 1347, 1347 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hamiltongreen1 sentence2017Later that year, in Conway , the Fourth Department stated, “[a]lthough the court erred in determining that a claim of actual innocence may not properly be raised pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (h) (see People v Hamilton, 115 AD3d 12, 15 [2014]), the court properly determined that defendant’s claim of actual innocence was ‘belied by his admission of guilt during the plea colloquy’ ” (People v Conway, 118 AD3d at 1290 , quoting People v Conde, 34 AD3d 1347, 1347 [2006]). | 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. Conway
green
2 sentences2017Moreover, a plea of guilty “ ‘should not be permitted to be used as a device for a defendant to avoid a trial while maintaining a claim of factual innocence’ ” (People v Conway, 118 AD3d 1290 , 1290 [2014], quoting People v Plunkett, 19 NY3d 400, 406 [2012]), and we conclude that the same is true of an Alford plea (see generally Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 475 [2000]). 2017Moreover, a plea of guilty “ ‘should not be permitted to be used as a device for a defendant to avoid a trial while maintaining a claim of factual innocence’ ” (People v Conway, 118 AD3d 1290 , 1290 [2014], quoting People v Plunkett, 19 NY3d 400, 406 [2012]), and we conclude that the same is true of an Alford plea (see generally Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 475 [2000]). | 4 | 2017–2017 |
Walton v. Arizona
red
2 sentences2024First, in Ring v Arizona ( 536 US 584 [2002]), the Court overruled Walton v Arizona ( 497 US 639 [1990]), which had allowed a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty, for which the defendant was initially "eligible" because of his conviction for first-degree murder. 2024First, in Ring v Arizona ( 536 US 584 [2002]), the Court overruled Walton v Arizona ( 497 US 639 [1990]), which had allowed a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty, for which the defendant was initially "eligible" because of his conviction for first-degree murder. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Almendarez-Torres v. United States
red
2 sentences2024The Supreme Court, however, has consistently narrowed the circumstances in which judicial findings may be used to enhance sentencing, all the while maintaining an exception for the "fact of a prior conviction," as established in Almendarez-Torres v United States ( 523 US 224 [1998]). 2024The Supreme Court, however, has consistently narrowed the circumstances in which judicial findings may be used to enhance sentencing, all the while maintaining an exception for the "fact of a prior conviction," as established in Almendarez-Torres v United States ( 523 US 224 [1998]). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Ring v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2024First, in Ring v Arizona ( 536 US 584 [2002]), the Court overruled Walton v Arizona ( 497 US 639 [1990]), which had allowed a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty, for which the defendant was initially "eligible" because of his conviction for first-degree murder. 2024First, in Ring v Arizona ( 536 US 584 [2002]), the Court overruled Walton v Arizona ( 497 US 639 [1990]), which had allowed a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty, for which the defendant was initially "eligible" because of his conviction for first-degree murder. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.