You are here: / / COURT DID NOT MAKE SURE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING...

COURT DID NOT MAKE SURE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the court did not adequately explain the rights defendant was giving up by pleading guilty:

During the plea proceedings, County Court engaged in an abbreviated colloquy during which it made only a passing reference to the rights that defendant was giving up by pleading guilty. Notably, the court did not mention the privilege against self-incrimination or advise defendant of his right to a jury trial. Nor did the court ascertain whether defendant had conferred with counsel regarding the trial-related rights that he was waiving or the constitutional consequences of his guilty plea. With no affirmative showing on the record that defendant understood and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights when he entered his guilty plea, the plea was invalid and must be vacated … . People v Holmes, 2018 NY Slip Op 04039, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEA, COURT DID NOT MAKE SURE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA (COURT DID NOT MAKE SURE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A SWORN JUROR, AN ATTORNEY, WHOSE FIRM REPRESENTED THE MURDER VICTIM’S PARENTS IN AN ACTION TO GAIN CUSTODY OF THE DEFENDANT’S AND VICTIM’S CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON IMPLIED BIAS GROUNDS (THIRD DEPT).
ATTORNEY WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY PROSECUTED MOTHER FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPOINTED TO REPRESENT MOTHER’S CHILDREN IN A CUSTODY MATTER; IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE MOTHER WAS PREJUDICED BY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION MOTION TO VACATE CUSTODY STIPULATION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS PROPERLY DENIED.
FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT). ​
COUNTY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK LEVEL PROCEEDING; ORDER REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
MOTHER WAS NOT GIVEN THE CHANCE TO ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO THE ALLEGATIONS FORMING THE BASIS OF FAMILY COURT’S FINDING THAT MOTHER VIOLATED A VISITATION ORDER, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE AN OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMPLAINT OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).
BEFORE PETITIONER INMATE’S ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS CONSIDERED RESPONDENT VOLUNTARILY REVERSED THE GUILTY FINDINGS ON THE PRISON DISCIPLINARY VIOLATIONS; PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT UNDER THE “CATALYST THEORY” (THIRD DEPT).
THE COURT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT PROCURED BY THE PEOPLE AFTER A MISTRIAL, THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WAS A NULLITY, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO THE REASON FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE... FAILURE TO EXPLAIN TO THE JURY THAT ACQUITTAL OF ATTEMPTED MURDER BASED ON THE...