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.
8 New York opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2026 4 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. Moxgreen2 sentences2026Here, at sentencing, the court—confronted with defendant's statement to the Department of Probation raising a possible defense—inquired further to confirm that defendant understood that by pleading guilty, she was giving up her ability to raise a potentially viable insanity defense (see People v Mox, 20 NY3d 936, 938-939 [2012]; Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666 ; People v Serrano, 15 NY2d 304, 310 [1965]). 2026Here, at sentencing, the court—confronted with defendant's statement to the Department of Probation raising a possible defense—inquired further to confirm that defendant understood that by pleading guilty, she was giving up her ability to raise a potentially viable insanity defense (see People v Mox, 20 NY3d 936, 938-939 [2012]; Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; People v Serrano, 15 NY2d 304, 310 [1965]). | 4 | 7 |
People v. Armlingreen2 sentences2023The plea allocution did not address whether defendant was making an informed decision to waive a potentially viable insanity defense ( see People v Mox , 20 NY3d 936, 939 [2012]), and the record as a whole casts significant doubt on defendant's mental competence and ability to understand the proceedings or the terms of his plea ( see People v Armlin , 37 NY2d 167, 171 [1975]). 2023The plea allocution did not address whether defendant was making an informed decision to waive a potentially viable insanity defense ( see People v Mox , 20 NY3d 936, 939 [2012]), and the record as a whole casts significant doubt on defendant's mental competence and ability to understand the proceedings or the terms of his plea ( see People v Armlin , 37 NY2d 167, 171 [1975]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2026Here, at sentencing, the court—confronted with defendant's statement to the Department of Probation raising a possible defense—inquired further to confirm that defendant understood that by pleading guilty, she was giving up her ability to raise a potentially viable insanity defense (see People v Mox, 20 NY3d 936, 938-939 [2012]; Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666 ; People v Serrano, 15 NY2d 304, 310 [1965]). 2026Here, at sentencing, the court—confronted with defendant's statement to the Department of Probation raising a possible defense—inquired further to confirm that defendant understood that by pleading guilty, she was giving up her ability to raise a potentially viable insanity defense (see People v Mox, 20 NY3d 936, 938-939 [2012]; Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; People v Serrano, 15 NY2d 304, 310 [1965]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Serranogreen2 sentences2026Here, at sentencing, the court—confronted with defendant's statement to the Department of Probation raising a possible defense—inquired further to confirm that defendant understood that by pleading guilty, she was giving up her ability to raise a potentially viable insanity defense (see People v Mox, 20 NY3d 936, 938-939 [2012]; Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666 ; People v Serrano, 15 NY2d 304, 310 [1965]). 2026Here, at sentencing, the court—confronted with defendant's statement to the Department of Probation raising a possible defense—inquired further to confirm that defendant understood that by pleading guilty, she was giving up her ability to raise a potentially viable insanity defense (see People v Mox, 20 NY3d 936, 938-939 [2012]; Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; People v Serrano, 15 NY2d 304, 310 [1965]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.