11 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2020–2025 9 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 sentences2025The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d at 255 ). 2025We find that the waiver of appeal entered into during the plea allocution was valid in that it made clear, among other things, that it was not an absolute bar to taking a direct appeal and that some issues were nonwaivable, while providing specific examples of some of those rights that did survive the waiver ( see People v Thomas , 34 NY3d 545 , 558 [2019]; People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Joseph , 227 AD3d 1233 , 1234-1235 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1053 [2024]). [FN2] Although it may be the "better practice" ( People v Thomas , 34 NY3d at 567; see People v Streater , | 1 | 3 |
People v. Streatergreen1 sentence2025We find that the waiver of appeal entered into during the plea allocution was valid in that it made clear, among other things, that it was not an absolute bar to taking a direct appeal and that some issues were nonwaivable, while providing specific examples of some of those rights that did survive the waiver ( see People v Thomas , 34 NY3d 545 , 558 [2019]; People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Joseph , 227 AD3d 1233 , 1234-1235 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1053 [2024]). [FN2] Although it may be the "better practice" ( People v Thomas , 34 NY3d at 567; see People v Streater , | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pattersongreen2 sentences2025"The [County] [C]ourt's colloquy followed, almost verbatim, the model colloquy for the waiver of the right to appeal drafted by the Unified Court System's Criminal Jury Instructions and Model Colloquy Committee, the use of which has been endorsed by this Court in People v Batista ( 167 AD3d 69 , 76-78), and by the Court of Appeals in [*2]People v Thomas (34 NY3d at 566-567)" ( People v Patterson , _____ AD3d _____, ______, 2025 NY Slip Op 06337, *1 ). 2025"The [County] [C]ourt's colloquy followed, almost verbatim, the model colloquy for the waiver of the right to appeal drafted by the Unified Court System's Criminal Jury Instructions and Model Colloquy Committee, the use of which has been endorsed by this Court in People v Batista (167 AD3d 69, 76-78), and by the Court of Appeals in [*2]People v Thomas (34 NY3d at 566-567)" ( People v Patterson , _____ AD3d _____, ______, 2025 NY Slip Op 06337, *1). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sladegreen1 sentence2022Footnotes Footnote 1: We encourage County Court to review the Model Colloquy for the waiver of the right to appeal ( see New York State Unified Court System, Criminal Jury Instructions & Model Colloquies, Waiver of Right to Appeal [https://www.nycourts.gov/ judges/cji/8-Colloquies/1MCTOC.shtml]; People v Slade , 180 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2020]; People v Batista , 167 AD3d 69 , 83 [2018, Scheinkman, P.J., concurring]; see People v Bisono , 36 NY3d 1013 , 1026 [2020, Garcia, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part]). | 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. Brown
green
2 sentences2024Moreover, the written waiver of appeal, which the defendant acknowledged reading, reviewing with defense counsel, and signing, correctly informed the defendant that by waiving his right to appeal, he "can still file a notice of appeal, [and] have an attorney appointed if [he] cannot afford one " (emphasis added) ( see id. at 560; People v Brown , 122 AD3d 133, 140-141 ). 2022By following the Model Colloquy for the waiver of the right to appeal drafted by the Unified Court System's Criminal Jury Instructions and Model Colloquy Committee—a practice specifically endorsed by this Court in People v Batista ( 167 AD3d 69 , 77-78), and by the Court of Appeals in People v Thomas (34 NY3d at 567)—the County Court ensured that the defendant understood, most significantly, that the waiver of his right to appeal was distinct from the trial rights that would be automatically forfeited as a consequence of his plea of guilty ( see People v Brown , 122 AD3d 133, 137 ), and that t | 2 | 2022–2024 |
People v. Goods
neutral
1 sentence2025In attempting to clarify, the court mischaracterized the nature of the right to appeal such that the defendant's understanding of the appeal waiver is not evident on the face of the record ( see People v Jones , 198 AD3d 985 , 986; People v Quezada , 122 AD3d 948, 948 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
PEOPLE EX REL. ACKRIDGE v. Barkley
green
1 sentence2025Moreover, any alleged ambiguity in the oral colloquy was cured by the detailed written waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v Ramos , 7 NY3d 737, 738 ; People v Batista , 167 AD3d at 75). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Quezada
green
1 sentence2025In attempting to clarify, the court mischaracterized the nature of the right to appeal such that the defendant's understanding of the appeal waiver is not evident on the face of the record ( see People v Jones , 198 AD3d 985 , 986; People v Quezada , 122 AD3d 948, 948 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Melli v. Bennett
green
1 sentence2020We note, however, that "the Model Colloquy for the waiver of right to appeal drafted by the Unified Court System's Criminal Jury Instructions and Model Colloquy Committee neatly synthesizes [Court of Appeals] precedent and the governing principles and provides a solid reference for a better practice" ( People v Thomas , 34 NY3d 545 , 567 [2019], cert denied — US &mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Koumjian
green
1 sentence2020Here, contrary to the People's contention, the defendant was not required to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the validity of the appeal waiver ( see People v Ramos , 135 AD3d 1234, 1235 ; People v McGrew , 118 AD3d 1490, 1490 ; People v Baliraj , 101 AD3d 1175, 1176 ; People v Hoover , 37 AD3d 298, 299-300 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Ramos
green
1 sentence2020Here, contrary to the People's contention, the defendant was not required to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the validity of the appeal waiver ( see People v Ramos , 135 AD3d 1234, 1235 ; People v McGrew , 118 AD3d 1490, 1490 ; People v Baliraj , 101 AD3d 1175, 1176 ; People v Hoover , 37 AD3d 298, 299-300 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. McGrew
green
1 sentence2020Here, contrary to the People's contention, the defendant was not required to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the validity of the appeal waiver ( see People v Ramos , 135 AD3d 1234, 1235 ; People v McGrew , 118 AD3d 1490, 1490 ; People v Baliraj , 101 AD3d 1175, 1176 ; People v Hoover , 37 AD3d 298, 299-300 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Hoover
green
1 sentence2020Here, contrary to the People's contention, the defendant was not required to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the validity of the appeal waiver ( see People v Ramos , 135 AD3d 1234, 1235 ; People v McGrew , 118 AD3d 1490, 1490 ; People v Baliraj , 101 AD3d 1175, 1176 ; People v Hoover , 37 AD3d 298, 299-300 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |