People v. Dennis

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Simmons

    110 A.D.3d 1371 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 16 times

    denied21 N.Y.3d 1073, –––N.Y.S.2d ––––, ––– N.E.2d –––– [Sept. 19, 2013]; see People v. Dennis, 66 A.D.3d 1058, 1058, 886 N.Y.S.2d 240 [2009];People v. Barber, 280 A.D.2d 691, 693, 720 N.Y.S.2d 223 [2001],lv. denied96 N.Y.2d 825, 729 N.Y.S.2d 445, 754 N.E.2d 205 [2001];People v. Washington, 138 A.D.2d 857, 858, 526 N.Y.S.2d 243 [1988] ). Additionally, County Court's order approving defendant's waiver of indictment expressly stated that such waiver “fully complie[d]” with the provisions of CPL 195.10 ( see People v. Sabin, 73 A.D.3d 1390, 1391, 905 N.Y.S.2d 282 [2010],lv.

  2. People v. Hauenstein

    106 A.D.3d 1339 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 3 times

    Moreover, during the plea proceedings, County Court advised defendant of the rights he was giving up by waiving indictment and proceeding on a superior court information. Given the presumption of regularity accorded to judicial proceedings and defendant's failure to submit any proof tending to rebut that presumption, we conclude that the waiver of indictment was valid ( see People v. Davis, 84 A.D.3d 1645, 1646, 923 N.Y.S.2d 364 [2011],lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 815, 929 N.Y.S.2d 804, 954 N.E.2d 95 [2011];People v. Dennis, 66 A.D.3d 1058, 1058–1059, 886 N.Y.S.2d 240 [2009];People v. Barber, 280 A.D.2d 691, 692–693, 720 N.Y.S.2d 223 [2001],lv. denied96 N.Y.2d 825, 729 N.Y.S.2d 445, 754 N.E.2d 205 [2001] ).

  3. People v. Davenport

    106 A.D.3d 1197 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 16 times

    Notably, this order followed a thorough colloquy conducted to ascertain that defendant understood the nature of the rights he was surrendering; further, the prosecutor had expressed consent, and defendant had executed the written waiver in open court in his counsel's presence ( seeCPL 195.10[1][c]; 195.20; People v. Barber, 280 A.D.2d at 693, 720 N.Y.S.2d 223;People v. Chad S., 237 A.D.2d 986, 986, 656 N.Y.S.2d 990 [1997],lv. denied90 N.Y.2d 856, 661 N.Y.S.2d 183, 683 N.E.2d 1057 [1997] ). Lacking affirmative proof that the waiver did not fulfill statutory requirements or that other defects existed, we accord a presumption of regularity to the proceedings, and find the waiver of indictment valid ( see People v. Sabin, 73 A.D.3d 1390, 1391, 905 N.Y.S.2d 282 [2010],lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 809, 908 N.Y.S.2d 169, 934 N.E.2d 903 [2010];People v. Dennis, 66 A.D.3d 1058, 1058–1059, 886 N.Y.S.2d 240 [2009] ).

  4. People v. Spencer

    87 A.D.3d 1284 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

    With respect to appeal No. 2, defendant contends that his waiver of indictment was invalid inasmuch as there is no evidence in the record before us that a local criminal court held him over for the action of a grand jury on the charges in the superior court information (SCI). Defendant is correct that his contention “is a jurisdictional one which survives his appeal waiver and guilty plea” ( People v. Dennis, 66 A.D.3d 1058, 1058, 886 N.Y.S.2d 240; see People v. Boston, 75 N.Y.2d 585, 589 n., 555 N.Y.S.2d 27, 554 N.E.2d 64), and we agree with defendant that his contention has merit. As the record establishes, at the time defendant waived indictment and consented to be prosecuted by an SCI, he had already been indicted on the burglary charges, which arose from the same incident.

  5. People v. Spencer

    87 A.D.3d 1284 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

    With respect to appeal No. 2, defendant contends that his waiver of indictment was invalid inasmuch as there is no evidence in the record before us that a local criminal court held him over for the action of a grand jury on the charges in the superior court information (SCI). Defendant is correct that his contention "is a jurisdictional one which survives his appeal waiver and guilty plea" ( People v Dennis, 66 AD3d 1058, 1058; see People v Boston, 75 NY2d 585, 589 n [1990]), and we agree with defendant that his contention has merit. As the record establishes, at the time defendant waived indictment and consented to be prosecuted by an SCI, he had already been indicted on the burglary charges, which arose from the same incident.

  6. People v. Clements

    74 A.D.3d 1636 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    Defendant also affirmed that he was willingly waiving his right to appeal on the record and, in response to multiple inquiries from County Court, stated that he had no questions regarding the issue. Under such circumstances, we find that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal ( see People v Dennis, 66 AD3d 1058, 1058; People v Tabbott, 61 AD3d 1183, 1184, lv denied 13 NY3d 750; People v Stokely, 49 AD3d 966, 967-968). Finally, given his valid appeal waiver, defendant has forfeited his right to challenge the sentence as harsh and excessive ( see People v Scitz, 67 AD3d 1251, 1252).