allocution requirement in New York

2024A separate allocution on the waiver of the right to appeal is critical, because "[b]y waiving the right to appeal in connection with a negotiated plea and sentence, a defendant agrees to end the proceedings entirely at the time of sentencing and to accept as reasonable the sentence imposed" ( see Lopez 6 NY3d at 255 ).

2014Given the valid appeal waiver, and that the court abided by its sentencing promise, defendant has relinquished the right to challenge that sentence as harsh and excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256 ).

1978The record of the sentencing shows that defendant was asked by the clerk, prior to his being sentenced, whether he had "any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against” him, to which his counsel replied: "He has none your Honor.” We have held that such an inquiry does not satisfy the statutory requirement (see People v Pennington, 47 AD2d 962 ; People v Cummings, 45 AD2d 763 ).

1975The allocution requirement set forth in CPL 380.50 is not satisfied by such inquiry (People v Cummings, 45 AD2d 763 ).

2019We excused the “ambiguity” in that colloquy under the circumstances, which included a written waiver form evidencing that the defendant was advised of the appellate process and the waiver by defense counsel and defendant’s on-the-record acknowledgement that he understood the rights he was waiving – all of which together sufficiently established a knowing and voluntary waiver ( 7 NY3d at 738 ). 4 Judge Wilson concludes that the required separation between the court’s allocution for the waiver of Boykin rights and the allocution for the appeal waiver means that the appeal waiver is not one of th

2007Since he did not raise any issue as to the voluntariness of his waiver, his claims in this regard are unpreserved for appellate review (People v Gliatta, 27 AD3d 441 [2006]; People v Dexter, 21 AD3d 403 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 716 [2005]).

2007Since he did not raise any issue as to the voluntariness of his waiver, his claims in this regard are unpreserved for appellate review (People v Gliatta, 27 AD3d 441 [2006]; People v Dexter, 21 AD3d 403 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 716 [2005]).

2007Since he did not raise any issue as to the voluntariness of his waiver, his claims in this regard are unpreserved for appellate review (People v Gliatta, 27 AD3d 441 [2006]; People v Dexter, 21 AD3d 403 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 716 [2005]).

1996Here, there was substantial compliance with the statute (see, People v McClain, 35 NY2d 483, 491 , cert denied sub nom.

1987Unlike the purported allocution error, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim can be raised in a collateral attack upon the judgment of conviction (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 ; People v Brown, 45 NY2d 852 ).

1987Unlike the purported allocution error, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim can be raised in a collateral attack upon the judgment of conviction (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 ; People v Brown, 45 NY2d 852 ).

1987Moreover, although the issue was not considered by the courts below, we may consider it, and in so doing we must review the record (see, People v Jones, 55 NY2d 771, 773 ). 1 We find no merit to the claim, however, because it is clear from the record that defendant sought the result she received and that, objectively evaluated, defendant received effective representation.

1983The allocution requirement set forth in CPL 380.50 is not satisfied by such inquiry (People v Willbright, 61 AD2d 818 ).

1978The record of the sentencing shows that defendant was asked by the clerk, prior to his being sentenced, whether he had "any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against” him, to which his counsel replied: "He has none your Honor.” We have held that such an inquiry does not satisfy the statutory requirement (see People v Pennington, 47 AD2d 962 ; People v Cummings, 45 AD2d 763 ).