You are here: / / APPEAL WAIVER INVALID, FLAWED ON-THE-RECORD EXPLANATION OF WAIVED RIGHTS...
,

APPEAL WAIVER INVALID, FLAWED ON-THE-RECORD EXPLANATION OF WAIVED RIGHTS NOT REMEDIED BY SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid because the trial judge did not make it clear the appeal-rights were distinct from those waived by the guilty plea. The written waiver signed by the defendant was not sufficient to remedy the flawed colloquy:

 

Here, the court never adequately explained the nature of the waiver, the rights the defendant would be waiving, or that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty. Rather, the court merely stated that “as a part of this” — that is, as part of the guilty plea — defendant was waiving his right to appeal and thus, that the convictions would be final because no appellate court would review them. Despite our dissenting colleague’s suggestion otherwise, the problem with the waiver’s validity is not that there was “some ambiguity in the court’s colloquy.” Rather, by using the phrase “as a part of this,” the trial court expressly undercut the principle that a defendant must understand his waiver of appeal to be distinct from the rights forfeited upon a guilty plea … . …

… [T]the written waiver that defendant signed was no substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal … . This conclusion holds especially true here, where the record does not make clear when defendant signed the waiver. Although the waiver itself states that defendant signed the waiver only “after being advised by the Court,” it is not evident from the record whether defendant signed the waiver before the colloquy regarding his right to appeal, or whether he signed it after. People v Bryant, 2016 NY Slip Op 01427, 1st Dept 3-1-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (INVALID WAIVER OF APPEAL)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL, WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID)/WAIVER (APPEAL, WAIVER INVALID DESPITE SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER)

You might also like
AFTER BEING TOLD THE PREMISES WAS NOT DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE, THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE TO DETERMINE WHERE DEFENDANT RESIDED BEFORE RESORTING TO NAIL-AND-MAIL SERVICE; THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF PHYSICIAN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED IN VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 741, PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT HOSPITAL CORPORATION’S POLICY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TESTED (FIRST DEPT).
The “Physical Intrusion” by the Police Officer (Tapping the Defendant’s Pocket) Was Not Justified by Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime—The Subsequent Frisk of the Defendant Was Similarly Not Justified—The Arrest Was Therefore Invalid–All Seized Items and Statements Made by the Defendant Should Have Been Suppressed
THE LANGUAGE OF THE POLICY IS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND CAN NOT BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THE POLICY COVERED A PREMISES AT WHICH THE INSURED DID NOT RESIDE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM TWO INCIDENTS: A FORM FELL OFF A WALL ONTO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A DEFECTIVE GRINDER (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FORKLIFT ACCIDENT RESULTED FROM A HOLE OR CRACK IN THE SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S BUILDING; EVEN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE ADJACENT SIDEWALK IN A REASONABLY SAFE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).
HOUSING AUTHORITY VIOLATED ITS OWN RULES AND EFFECTIVELY PREVENTED PETITIONER FROM MEETING THE PREREQUISITES FOR A HEARING ON HER REMAINING FAMILY MEMBER GRIEVANCE.
Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine Applied

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NON-SECURE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF... STAND-ALONE EXECUTIVE LAW 63 (12) CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD REINSTATED AGAINST...