You are here: / / WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID AND GUILTY PLEA VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS...
,

WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID AND GUILTY PLEA VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant's guilty plea, determine defendant's waiver of appeal was invalid and defendant was not informed of the period of post-release supervision:

We agree with defendant that his purported waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. “County Court failed to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to appeal at the time of the plea” … . Moreover, “the written waiver of the right to appeal that [defendant] signed as part of the treatment court contract,' [a day] after he pleaded guilty, does not constitute a valid waiver of the right to appeal” …

Furthermore, we agree with defendant that the court failed to fulfill its obligation to advise him, at the time of the plea, that the sentences imposed upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree would include periods of postrelease supervision … . People v Teta, 2018 NY Slip Op 06674, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID AND GUILTY PLEA VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID AND GUILTY PLEA VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (FOURTH DEPT))/POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID AND GUILTY PLEA VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (FOURTH DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA, VACATION OF (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID AND GUILTY PLEA VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANT’S AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR NEW COUNSEL, COUNTY COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY DENYING THE REQUEST WITHOUT MAKING A MINIMAL INQUIRY (FOURTH DEPT).
A 911 CALLER WHO PROVIDES ONLY HIS FIRST NAME IS AN ANONYMOUS INFORMANT AND PROVIDES THE POLICE WITH ONLY THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT TO INQUIRE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE VICTIM, AFTER IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT IN A PHOTO ARRAY, ASKED TO SEE A SECOND PHOTO ARRAY, HER IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THERE WAS A STRONG DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ITEMS SEIZED PURSUANT TO THE OVERBROAD SECTION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT, IF ANY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING; THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH, NOTWITHSTANDING THE INCLUSION OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY AN ANONYMOUS INFORMANT WHICH DID NOT SATISFY THE AGUILAR-SPINELLI TEST (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PROCEDURE SUNY BUFFALO USED TO QUESTION PARTIES AND WITNESSES ABOUT ALLEGATIONS OF PETITONER-STUDENT’S SEXUAL MISCONDUCT (SUBMITTED WRITTEN QUESTIONS) VIOLATED THE SCHOOL’S TITLE IX POLICY (LIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION); THE SCHOOL’S DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED AND THE RECORD WAS EXPUNGED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROBATION OFFICER’S SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE WAS UNLAWFUL AND UNREASONABLE BECAUSE IT WAS BASED SOLELY ON AN UNCORROBORATED ANONYMOUS TIP WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, THE DISSENT DISAGREED; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOWING CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM OR CREATED OR EXACERBATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
23-Week-old Child Who Was Born Alive and Lived for 2 1/2 Hours After Removal from Life-Support Was a “Person” Within the Meaning of the Manslaughter Statute

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

LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN... DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).