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.
6 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2018 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. Mastersongreen2 sentences2018Nothing defendant said during the plea colloquy itself raised the possibility that the affirmative defense under Penal Law § 160.15 (4) was applicable ( see People v Vogt , 150 AD3d 1704, 1705 [4th Dept 2017]; People v Masterson , 57 AD3d 1443, 1443 [4th Dept 2008]) and, contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the court had no duty to conduct an inquiry concerning the affirmative defense based upon comments made by defendant during the sentencing portion of the proceeding ( see Vogt , 150 AD3d at 1705 ; People v Garbarini , 64 AD3d 1179 , 1179 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 74 2016Contrary to defendant’s further contention, we conclude that the court was not obligated to conduct any inquiry of him concerning the statutory affirmative defense to felony murder (see generally Penal Law § 125.25 [3]) because nothing in the plea colloquy raised the possibility that the affirmative defense was applicable in this case (see People v Heyward, 111 AD2d 420, 420-421 [1985]; see generally People v Hill, 128 AD3d 1479, 1480 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 930 [2015]; People v Masterson, 57 AD3d 1443, 1443 [2008]). | 3 | 5 |
People v. Hillgreen2 sentences2016Contrary to defendant’s further contention, we conclude that the court was not obligated to conduct any inquiry of him concerning the statutory affirmative defense to felony murder (see generally Penal Law § 125.25 [3]) because nothing in the plea colloquy raised the possibility that the affirmative defense was applicable in this case (see People v Heyward, 111 AD2d 420, 420-421 [1985]; see generally People v Hill, 128 AD3d 1479, 1480 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 930 [2015]; People v Masterson, 57 AD3d 1443, 1443 [2008]). 2016Contrary to defendant’s further contention, we conclude that the court was not obligated to conduct any inquiry of him concerning the statutory affirmative defense to felony murder (see generally Penal Law § 125.25 [3]) because nothing in the plea colloquy raised the possibility that the affirmative defense was applicable in this case (see People v Heyward, 111 AD2d 420, 420-421 [1985]; see generally People v Hill, 128 AD3d 1479, 1480 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 930 [2015]; People v Masterson, 57 AD3d 1443, 1443 [2008]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Heywardgreen2 sentences2016Contrary to defendant’s further contention, we conclude that the court was not obligated to conduct any inquiry of him concerning the statutory affirmative defense to felony murder (see generally Penal Law § 125.25 [3]) because nothing in the plea colloquy raised the possibility that the affirmative defense was applicable in this case (see People v Heyward, 111 AD2d 420, 420-421 [1985]; see generally People v Hill, 128 AD3d 1479, 1480 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 930 [2015]; People v Masterson, 57 AD3d 1443, 1443 [2008]). 2016Contrary to defendant’s further contention, we conclude that the court was not obligated to conduct any inquiry of him concerning the statutory affirmative defense to felony murder (see generally Penal Law § 125.25 [3]) because nothing in the plea colloquy raised the possibility that the affirmative defense was applicable in this case (see People v Heyward, 111 AD2d 420, 420-421 [1985]; see generally People v Hill, 128 AD3d 1479, 1480 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 930 [2015]; People v Masterson, 57 AD3d 1443, 1443 [2008]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Lococogreen2 sentences2010Finally, the valid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). 2008Finally, the valid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hidalgogreen2 sentences2010Finally, the valid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). 2008Finally, the valid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Vogtgreen2 sentences2018Nothing defendant said during the plea colloquy itself raised the possibility that the affirmative defense under Penal Law § 160.15 (4) was applicable ( see People v Vogt , 150 AD3d 1704, 1705 [4th Dept 2017]; People v Masterson , 57 AD3d 1443, 1443 [4th Dept 2008]) and, contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the court had no duty to conduct an inquiry concerning the affirmative defense based upon comments made by defendant during the sentencing portion of the proceeding ( see Vogt , 150 AD3d at 1705 ; People v Garbarini , 64 AD3d 1179 , 1179 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 74 2018Nothing defendant said during the plea colloquy itself raised the possibility that the affirmative defense under Penal Law § 160.15 (4) was applicable ( see People v Vogt , 150 AD3d 1704, 1705 [4th Dept 2017]; People v Masterson , 57 AD3d 1443, 1443 [4th Dept 2008]) and, contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the court had no duty to conduct an inquiry concerning the affirmative defense based upon comments made by defendant during the sentencing portion of the proceeding ( see Vogt , 150 AD3d at 1705 ; People v Garbarini , 64 AD3d 1179 , 1179 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 74 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Greshamgreen1 sentence2018Nothing defendant said during the plea colloquy itself raised the possibility that the affirmative defense under Penal Law § 160.15 (4) was applicable ( see People v Vogt , 150 AD3d 1704, 1705 [4th Dept 2017]; People v Masterson , 57 AD3d 1443, 1443 [4th Dept 2008]) and, contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the court had no duty to conduct an inquiry concerning the affirmative defense based upon comments made by defendant during the sentencing portion of the proceeding ( see Vogt , 150 AD3d at 1705 ; People v Garbarini , 64 AD3d 1179 , 1179 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 74 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Carducci
green
1 sentence2018Finally, inasmuch as the certificate of conviction and uniform sentence and commitment form incorrectly reflect that defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender, they must be amended to reflect that he was sentenced as a second violent felony offender ( see People v Carducci , 143 AD3d 1260 , 1263 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1143 [2017]). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Garbarini
green
1 sentence2018Nothing defendant said during the plea colloquy itself raised the possibility that the affirmative defense under Penal Law § 160.15 (4) was applicable ( see People v Vogt , 150 AD3d 1704, 1705 [4th Dept 2017]; People v Masterson , 57 AD3d 1443, 1443 [4th Dept 2008]) and, contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the court had no duty to conduct an inquiry concerning the affirmative defense based upon comments made by defendant during the sentencing portion of the proceeding ( see Vogt , 150 AD3d at 1705 ; People v Garbarini , 64 AD3d 1179 , 1179 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 74 | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Carducci
neutral
1 sentence2018Finally, inasmuch as the certificate of conviction and uniform sentence and commitment form incorrectly reflect that defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender, they must be amended to reflect that he was sentenced as a second violent felony offender ( see People v Carducci , 143 AD3d 1260 , 1263 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1143 [2017]). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Trapp
neutral
1 sentence2008Nothing in the plea allocution raised the possibility that the affirmative defense was applicable (see People v Trapp, 15 AD3d 916 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 891 [2005]; People v Costanza, 244 AD2d 988 [1997]), however, and thus defendant’s contention does not fall within the rare case exception to the preservation rule (see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666 ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Trapp
green
1 sentence2008Nothing in the plea allocution raised the possibility that the affirmative defense was applicable (see People v Trapp, 15 AD3d 916 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 891 [2005]; People v Costanza, 244 AD2d 988 [1997]), however, and thus defendant’s contention does not fall within the rare case exception to the preservation rule (see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666 ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Costanza
green
1 sentence2008Nothing in the plea allocution raised the possibility that the affirmative defense was applicable (see People v Trapp, 15 AD3d 916 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 891 [2005]; People v Costanza, 244 AD2d 988 [1997]), however, and thus defendant’s contention does not fall within the rare case exception to the preservation rule (see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666 ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Lopez
green
1 sentence2008Nothing in the plea allocution raised the possibility that the affirmative defense was applicable (see People v Trapp, 15 AD3d 916 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 891 [2005]; People v Costanza, 244 AD2d 988 [1997]), however, and thus defendant’s contention does not fall within the rare case exception to the preservation rule (see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666 ). | 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.