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 2016–2020 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. Hidalgogreen2 sentences2016Initially, we conclude that defendant made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Adams, 94 AD3d 1428, 1428-1429 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 970 [2012]; see generally People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-342 [2015]), and that the waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; People v Bailey, 137 AD3d 1620, 1621 [2016]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 927-928 [2012]). 2016Initially, we conclude that defendant made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Adams, 94 AD3d 1428, 1428-1429 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 970 [2012]; see generally People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-342 [2015]), and that the waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; People v Bailey, 137 AD3d 1620, 1621 [2016]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 927-928 [2012]). | 3 | 3 |
The People v. Rasaun Sandersgreen2 sentences2016Initially, we conclude that defendant made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Adams, 94 AD3d 1428, 1428-1429 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 970 [2012]; see generally People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-342 [2015]), and that the waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; People v Bailey, 137 AD3d 1620, 1621 [2016]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 927-928 [2012]). 2016Initially, we conclude that defendant made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Adams, 94 AD3d 1428, 1428-1429 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 970 [2012]; see generally People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-342 [2015]), and that the waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; People v Bailey, 137 AD3d 1620, 1621 [2016]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 927-928 [2012]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2016Initially, we conclude that defendant made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Adams, 94 AD3d 1428, 1428-1429 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 970 [2012]; see generally People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-342 [2015]), and that the waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; People v Bailey, 137 AD3d 1620, 1621 [2016]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 927-928 [2012]). 2016Initially, we conclude that defendant made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Adams, 94 AD3d 1428, 1428-1429 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 970 [2012]; see generally People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-342 [2015]), and that the waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; People v Bailey, 137 AD3d 1620, 1621 [2016]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 927-928 [2012]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Maraclegreen2 sentences2016Initially, we conclude that defendant made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Adams, 94 AD3d 1428, 1428-1429 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 970 [2012]; see generally People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-342 [2015]), and that the waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; People v Bailey, 137 AD3d 1620, 1621 [2016]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 927-928 [2012]). 2016Initially, we conclude that defendant made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Adams, 94 AD3d 1428, 1428-1429 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 970 [2012]; see generally People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-342 [2015]), and that the waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; People v Bailey, 137 AD3d 1620, 1621 [2016]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 927-928 [2012]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Baileygreen2 sentences2016Initially, we conclude that defendant made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Adams, 94 AD3d 1428, 1428-1429 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 970 [2012]; see generally People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-342 [2015]), and that the waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; People v Bailey, 137 AD3d 1620, 1621 [2016]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 927-928 [2012]). 2016Initially, we conclude that defendant made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Adams, 94 AD3d 1428, 1428-1429 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 970 [2012]; see generally People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-342 [2015]), and that the waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; People v Bailey, 137 AD3d 1620, 1621 [2016]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 927-928 [2012]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Lococogreen2 sentences2020Inasmuch as defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal specifically included a waiver of the right to challenge the severity of the sentence and defendant was informed of the maximum sentence County Court could impose in its discretion, the waiver encompasses her challenge to the severity of her sentence ( see People v Lococo , 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Lasher , 151 AD3d 1774 , 1775 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1129 [2017]). 2019Inasmuch as defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal specifically included a waiver of the right to challenge the severity of the sentence and defendant was informed of "the maximum sentence [County Court] could impose in its discretion," the waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of his sentence ( People v Lococo , 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; see People v Lasher , 151 AD3d 1774 , 1775 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1129 [2017]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2020Inasmuch as defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal specifically included a waiver of the right to challenge the severity of the sentence and defendant was informed of the maximum sentence County Court could impose in its discretion, the waiver encompasses her challenge to the severity of her sentence ( see People v Lococo , 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Lasher , 151 AD3d 1774 , 1775 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1129 [2017]). 2019Inasmuch as defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal specifically included a waiver of the right to challenge the severity of the sentence and defendant was informed of "the maximum sentence [County Court] could impose in its discretion," the waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of his sentence ( People v Lococo , 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; see People v Lasher , 151 AD3d 1774 , 1775 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1129 [2017]). | 1 | 2 |
Matter of Clark v. Annuccigreen2 sentences2020Inasmuch as defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal specifically included a waiver of the right to challenge the severity of the sentence and defendant was informed of the maximum sentence County Court could impose in its discretion, the waiver encompasses her challenge to the severity of her sentence ( see People v Lococo , 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Lasher , 151 AD3d 1774 , 1775 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1129 [2017]). 2019Inasmuch as defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal specifically included a waiver of the right to challenge the severity of the sentence and defendant was informed of "the maximum sentence [County Court] could impose in its discretion," the waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of his sentence ( People v Lococo , 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; see People v Lasher , 151 AD3d 1774 , 1775 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1129 [2017]). | 1 | 2 |
| 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. Brand
green
1 sentence2019Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal likewise encompasses his challenges to the court's suppression ruling ( see People v Antonio J. , 173 AD3d 1743 , 1744 [4th Dept 2019]; People v Brand , 112 AD3d 1320 , 1321 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 961 [2014]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Wharton
green
1 sentence2018In any event, the motion court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony, without granting a Wade hearing, because the information presented to the court clearly established that the identification was confirmatory under the principles set forth in People v Wharton ( 74 NY2d 921 [1989]). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.