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.
7 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2014 0 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. Espinalgreen2 sentences2014In any event, “[t]he issue of intoxication was raised by [defendant] for the first time in the presentence interview, and thus the court had no duty to make further inquiry at the time of the plea based on information in the presentence report” (People v Jordan, 292 AD2d 860, 861 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 698 [2002]; see People v Espinal, 99 AD3d 435, 435 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 986 [2012]). 2014In any event, “[t]he issue of intoxication was raised by [defendant] for the first time in the presentence interview, and thus the court had no duty to make further inquiry at the time of the plea based on information in the presentence report” (People v Jordan, 292 AD2d 860, 861 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 698 [2002]; see People v Espinal, 99 AD3d 435, 435 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 986 [2012]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Jordangreen2 sentences2014In any event, “[t]he issue of intoxication was raised by [defendant] for the first time in the presentence interview, and thus the court had no duty to make further inquiry at the time of the plea based on information in the presentence report” (People v Jordan, 292 AD2d 860, 861 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 698 [2002]; see People v Espinal, 99 AD3d 435, 435 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 986 [2012]). 2014In any event, “[t]he issue of intoxication was raised by [defendant] for the first time in the presentence interview, and thus the court had no duty to make further inquiry at the time of the plea based on information in the presentence report” (People v Jordan, 292 AD2d 860, 861 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 698 [2002]; see People v Espinal, 99 AD3d 435, 435 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 986 [2012]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Grimesgreen2 sentences2012Defendant’s contention in his main brief that the court erred in failing sua sponte to inquire into his state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the crime is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and it is well settled that defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses that challenge (see People v Gleen, 73 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 773 [2010]; People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]; People v McKay, 5 AD3d 1040, 1041 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 803 [2004]). 2012Defendant’s contention in his main brief that the court erred in failing sua sponte to inquire into his state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the crime is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and it is well settled that defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses that challenge (see People v Gleen, 73 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 773 [2010]; People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]; People v McKay, 5 AD3d 1040, 1041 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 803 [2004]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Gleengreen2 sentences2012Defendant’s contention in his main brief that the court erred in failing sua sponte to inquire into his state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the crime is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and it is well settled that defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses that challenge (see People v Gleen, 73 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 773 [2010]; People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]; People v McKay, 5 AD3d 1040, 1041 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 803 [2004]). 2012Defendant’s contention in his main brief that the court erred in failing sua sponte to inquire into his state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the crime is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and it is well settled that defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses that challenge (see People v Gleen, 73 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 773 [2010]; People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]; People v McKay, 5 AD3d 1040, 1041 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 803 [2004]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2012Defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal also encompasses the challenge in his main brief to the severity of the sentence (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]). 2012Defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal also encompasses the challenge in his main brief to the severity of the sentence (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Fogangreen2 sentences2012Defendant’s contention in his main brief that the court erred in failing sua sponte to inquire into his state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the crime is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and it is well settled that defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses that challenge (see People v Gleen, 73 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 773 [2010]; People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]; People v McKay, 5 AD3d 1040, 1041 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 803 [2004]). 2012Defendant’s contention in his main brief that the court erred in failing sua sponte to inquire into his state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the crime is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and it is well settled that defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses that challenge (see People v Gleen, 73 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 773 [2010]; People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]; People v McKay, 5 AD3d 1040, 1041 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 803 [2004]). | 2 | 3 |
| 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. Zimmerman
green
2 sentences2014Defendant’s further contention that “the court erred in failing sua sponte to inquire into his state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the crime is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and it is well settled that defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses that challenge” (People v Zimmerman, 100 AD3d 1360 , 1361 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1015 [2013]). 2014Defendant’s further contention that “the court erred in failing sua sponte to inquire into his state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the crime is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and it is well settled that defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses that challenge” (People v Zimmerman, 100 AD3d 1360 , 1361 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1015 [2013]). | 3 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Melendez
green
2 sentences2012Defendant’s contention in his main brief that the court erred in failing sua sponte to inquire into his state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the crime is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and it is well settled that defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses that challenge (see People v Gleen, 73 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 773 [2010]; People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]; People v McKay, 5 AD3d 1040, 1041 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 803 [2004]). 2012Defendant’s contention in his main brief that the court erred in failing sua sponte to inquire into his state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the crime is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and it is well settled that defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses that challenge (see People v Gleen, 73 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 773 [2010]; People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]; People v McKay, 5 AD3d 1040, 1041 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 803 [2004]). | 3 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Hall
green
2 sentences2012Defendant’s contention in his main brief that the court erred in failing sua sponte to inquire into his state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the crime is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and it is well settled that defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses that challenge (see People v Gleen, 73 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 773 [2010]; People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]; People v McKay, 5 AD3d 1040, 1041 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 803 [2004]). 2012Defendant’s contention in his main brief that the court erred in failing sua sponte to inquire into his state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the crime is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and it is well settled that defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses that challenge (see People v Gleen, 73 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 773 [2010]; People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]; People v McKay, 5 AD3d 1040, 1041 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 803 [2004]). | 3 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Concepcion
neutral
1 sentence2012Defendant’s contention in his main brief that the court erred in failing sua sponte to inquire into his state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the crime is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and it is well settled that defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses that challenge (see People v Gleen, 73 AD3d 1443, 1444 , lv denied 15 NY3d 733 ; People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055, 1056 , lv denied 11 NY3d 789 ; People v McKay, 5 AD3d 1040, 1041 , lv denied 2 NY3d 803 ). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Cameron
neutral
1 sentence2008The contention of defendant that his plea was involuntary based on his failure to recite the facts underlying the crime is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v Cameron, 55 AD3d 1382 [2008]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.