You are here: / / THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; THE PLEA COURT CONFLATED THE RIGHT TO...
,

THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; THE PLEA COURT CONFLATED THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITH THE RIGHTS FORFEITED BY A GUILTY PLEA; CASE REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SUPPRESSION CLAIM (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division and remitting the case for consideration of the suppression claim, upon the People’s concession, determined the waiver of appeal was invalid:

… [O]rder reversed and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for further proceedings. Under the totality of the circumstances and upon the People’s concession that the appeal waiver was invalid because the plea court conflated the right to appeal with those rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea, defendant’s appeal waiver did not foreclose consideration of his suppression claim … . People v Johnson, 2022 NY Slip Op 00909, CtApp 2-10-22

 

You might also like
EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND.
Building Which Included Residential (Hotel) and Non-Residential Sections Constituted a “Dwelling” Supporting Defendant’s Conviction for Burglary in the Second Degree
​ IN A DISPUTE INVOLVING THE TELECAST RIGHTS FOR TWO MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL TEAMS, THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED ITS POWERS, WHICH WERE SPELLED OUT IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, BY IMPOSING A MONEY JUDGMENT; THE ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS AFFIRMED BUT THE MONEY JUDGMENT WAS VACATED (CT APP).
A Third-Party’s Removal of a Safety Device Did Not Require Summary Judgment In Favor of the Manufacturer, Even though the Safety Device Would Have Prevented the Injury/There Was Evidence the Safety Device Itself Was Defective, Leading to Its Removal by the Third Party/Therefore, the “Substantial Modification” Defense Did Not Insulate the Manufacturer from Liability as a Matter of Law
Defendant Who Was Not Informed His Guilty Plea Would Result in Deportation Was Unable to Demonstrate He Was Prejudiced by the Omission
DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE A VESTED RIGHT IN A CONDITIONAL FINAL SITE APPROVAL IN LIGHT OF A CONFLICTING REZONING LAW IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL.
DEFENDANT APPEARED IN COURT WITH A SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL WHO INFORMED THE COURT ANOTHER LEGAL AID LAWYER WAS BEING ASSIGNED TO DEFENDANT’S CASE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT “WITHOUT COUNSEL” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPL 30.30; THE ASSOCIATED SPEEDY-TRIAL TIME-PERIOD SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE, NOT THE DEFENDANT (CT APP). ​
Where There Is Evidence, Other than or in Addition to a Chemical Test, of a Blood Alcohol Content, the Jury Can Be Instructed that It May Base Its Verdict on Its Own Finding Re: Blood Alcohol Content

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

AFTER MAKING THE LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAYMENTS FOR 15 YEARS ON THE PREMIUM... ANSWERING A CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT, THE COURT OF APPEALS...