People v. Waldon

8 Citing cases

  1. People v. Fontanez

    171 A.D.3d 789 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

    Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (seePeople v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 267, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). Although the Supreme Court correctly described the defendant as waiving the right to appeal "in consideration" for "this disposition," other statements made by the court at the plea allocution improperly suggested that the waiver of the right to appeal was mandatory rather than a right that the defendant was being asked to voluntarily relinquish (seePeople v. Waldon, 157 A.D.3d 913, 913, 66 N.Y.S.3d 906 ; People v. Santeramo, 153 A.D.3d 1286, 1286, 61 N.Y.S.3d 295 ; People v. Pelaez, 100 A.D.3d 803, 803, 954 N.Y.S.2d 554 ). The court never elicited an acknowledgment that the defendant was voluntarily waiving his right to appeal (seePeople v. Rodriguez, 167 A.D.3d 662, 86 N.Y.S.3d 895 ; People v. Waldon, 157 A.D.3d at 913, 66 N.Y.S.3d 906 ; People v. Santeramo, 153 A.D.3d at 1286, 61 N.Y.S.3d 295 ).

  2. People v. Rodriguez

    167 A.D.3d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Contrary to the People's contention, the record does not reflect that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (seePeople v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ). At the plea allocution, the Supreme Court improperly suggested that waiving the right to appeal was mandatory rather than a right that the defendant was being asked to voluntarily relinquish, and the court never elicited an acknowledgment that the defendant was voluntarily waiving his right to appeal (seePeople v. Waldon, 157 A.D.3d 913, 913–914, 66 N.Y.S.3d 906 ; People v. Pelaez, 100 A.D.3d 803, 803, 954 N.Y.S.2d 554 ). Moreover, the record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and the other trial rights that are forfeited incident to a plea of guilty (seePeople v. Waldon, 157 A.D.3d at 913–914, 66 N.Y.S.3d 906 ; People v. Pelaez, 100 A.D.3d at 803, 954 N.Y.S.2d 554 ).

  3. People v. Birch

    171 A.D.3d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 9 times

    The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (seePeople v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 267, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). The Supreme Court never elicited an acknowledgment that the defendant was voluntarily waiving his right to appeal (seePeople v. Waldon, 157 A.D.3d 913, 913, 66 N.Y.S.3d 906 ; People v. Pelaez, 100 A.D.3d 803, 803, 954 N.Y.S.2d 554 ). Moreover, the court's colloquy did not ensure the defendant's understanding of the distinction between the waiver of his right to appeal and other rights automatically forfeited on a plea of guilty (seePeople v. Rivas, 166 A.D.3d 1019, 86 N.Y.S.3d 741 ; People v. Melendez, 164 A.D.3d 1473, 84 N.Y.S.3d 513 ; People v. Waldon, 157 A.D.3d at 913–914, 66 N.Y.S.3d 906 ; People v. Pelaez, 100 A.D.3d at 803, 954 N.Y.S.2d 554 ).

  4. People v. Pray

    183 A.D.3d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 20 times

    The defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to appeal (seePeople v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). The County Court's statements improperly suggested that the waiver of the right to appeal was mandatory rather than a right that the defendant was being asked to voluntarily relinquish as a condition of the plea agreement, and the court never elicited an acknowledgment that the defendant was voluntarily waiving his right to appeal (seePeople v. Mojica, 178 A.D.3d 856, 111 N.Y.S.3d 885 ; People v. Waldon, 157 A.D.3d 913, 914, 66 N.Y.S.3d 906 ; People v. Santeramo, 153 A.D.3d 1286, 61 N.Y.S.3d 295 ). Moreover, the record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and other trial rights forfeited incident to his plea of guilty (seePeople v. Waldon, 157 A.D.3d at 914, 66 N.Y.S.3d 906 ; People v. Santeramo, 153 A.D.3d at 1286–1287, 61 N.Y.S.3d 295 ).

  5. People v. Rivas

    166 A.D.3d 1019 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

    The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (seePeople v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 267, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Melendez, 164 A.D.3d 1473, 84 N.Y.S.3d 513 ; People v. James, 164 A.D.3d 1363, 81 N.Y.S.3d 743 ; People v. Kajuan L., 164 A.D.3d 523, 77 N.Y.S.3d 895 ; People v. Bogun, 162 A.D.3d 898, 75 N.Y.S.3d 427 ). Among other deficiencies, the Supreme Court's limited and muddled colloquy did not ensure the defendant's understanding of the distinction between his waiver of the right to appeal and the other rights that are automatically forfeited on a plea of guilty (seePeople v. Melendez, 164 A.D.3d 1473, 84 N.Y.S.3d 513 ; People v. James, 164 A.D.3d 1363, 81 N.Y.S.3d 743 ; People v. Kajuan L., 164 A.D.3d 523, 77 N.Y.S.3d 895 ; People v. Daniels, 160 A.D.3d 979, 72 N.Y.S.3d 470 ; People v. Waldon, 157 A.D.3d 913, 66 N.Y.S.3d 906 ). Although the record includes a written waiver of the right to appeal signed by the defendant, the court failed to ascertain on the record whether the defendant had read the waiver or whether he was aware of its contents (seePeople v. James, 164 A.D.3d 1363, 81 N.Y.S.3d 743 ; People v. Kajuan L., 164 A.D.3d 523, 77 N.Y.S.3d 895 ; People v. Daniels, 160 A.D.3d 979, 72 N.Y.S.3d 470 ; People v. Waldon, 157 A.D.3d 913, 66 N.Y.S.3d 906 ).

  6. People v. Arias

    176 A.D.3d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

    ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.Although the Supreme Court misstated the law by informing the defendant that the appeal waiver would preclude him from challenging his competency or raising issues that might affect the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 10, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022 ; People v. Waldon, 157 A.D.3d 913, 914, 66 N.Y.S.3d 906 ), the court's overly broad explanation of the issues encompossed by the waiver of the right to appeal does not, standing alone, render the waiver involuntary (seePeople v. Pelaez, 100 A.D.3d 803, 954 N.Y.S.2d 554 ; cf.People v. Edmunson, 109 A.D.3d 621, 970 N.Y.S.2d 635 ). The record otherwise demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (seePeople v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 339–342, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256–257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Batista, 167 A.D.3d 69, 74, 86 N.Y.S.3d 492 ).

  7. People v. Rosa-Gomez

    169 A.D.3d 831 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

    ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, as the record does not demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (seePeople v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; People v. Vinson, 161 A.D.3d 1109, 73 N.Y.S.3d 905 ; People v. Waldon, 157 A.D.3d 913, 66 N.Y.S.3d 906 ; People v. Chestnut, 142 A.D.3d 559, 36 N.Y.S.3d 396 ; People v. Whitney, 125 A.D.3d 795, 999 N.Y.S.2d 899 ). Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (seePeople v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).

  8. People v. Batista

    167 A.D.3d 69 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 97 times
    Stating that the waiver of the right to appeal "is given as part of the consideration for the plea being offered to the defendant by the People"

    Our research has shown that this Court has held an appeal waiver invalid in well over 200 appeals over the past five years. This problem is not confined to a certain trial judge or county (see e.g.People v. Rodriguez, 160 A.D.3d 779, 71 N.Y.S.3d 386 [Kings County] ; People v. Smith, 160 A.D.3d 664, 73 N.Y.S.3d 600 [Orange County] ; People v. Cassadean, 160 A.D.3d 655, 72 N.Y.S.3d 575 [Nassau County] ; People v. Solizgalvez, 159 A.D.3d 838, 69 N.Y.S.3d 826 [Suffolk County] ; People v. Waldon, 157 A.D.3d 913, 66 N.Y.S.3d 906 [Queens County] ; People v. Joyner, 156 A.D.3d 725, 64 N.Y.S.3d 906 [Dutchess County] ; People v. Marrero, 153 A.D.3d 1364, 59 N.Y.S.3d 905 [Richmond County] ; People v. Clarke, 144 A.D.3d 937, 40 N.Y.S.3d 790 [Westchester County] ; People v. Camarda, 138 A.D.3d 884, 29 N.Y.S.3d 511 [Putnam County] ; People v. Boone, 134 A.D.3d 945, 20 N.Y.S.3d 903 [Rockland County] ). In short, we are mindful of the time demands on our trial courts, but we must reiterate that the benefit to be derived from a thorough colloquy regarding the waiver of the right to appeal outweighs any burden imposed on the trial courts by a slight increase in the length of plea proceedings (seePeople v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d at 145, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ).