People v. Ramos
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Citation | 7 N.Y.3d 737,853 N.E.2d 222 |
| Decision Date | 13 June 2006 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Carlos RAMOS, Appellant. |
Page 222
v.
Carlos RAMOS, Appellant.
Appellate Advocates, New York City (Lynn W.L. Fahey of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Joyce Slevin of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was effective. Even if there were any ambiguity in the sentencing court's colloquy, defendant executed a detailed written waiver, distinguishing this case from People v. Billingslea, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006], in which the sentencing court's colloquy was "accompanied by nothing other than defendant's one-word response to the question whether she understood the conditions of her plea." In this case, defendant's written waiver stated that defendant had the right to appeal, explained the appellate process and confirmed that defense counsel fully advised him of the right to take an appeal under the laws of the State of New York. The record therefore establishes that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ and R.S. SMITH concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sanders
...did not execute a written waiver detailing the rights he would be giving up by waiving his right to appeal ( cf. People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222). The majority relies heavily on People v. Nicholson, a companion case to Lopez. In Nicholson, the defendant was a......
-
People v. Thomas, No. 87, No. 88, No. 89
...12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 267, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 [2011] ; People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222 [2006] ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ). The role played by......
-
People v. Brown,
...supplement to the oral colloquy. Still others fall into a gray area and provide opportunity for inconsistency.In People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222, the defendant executed a written waiver which "explained the appellate process." 2 He 992 N.Y.S.2d 304 was a......
-
People v. Batista, 2014–11805
...the defendant validly waived his right to appeal (see People v. Sanders , 25 N.Y.3d 337, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222 ). The defendant answered in the affirmative when the Supreme Court asked, "Do you understand that one of......
-
People v. Sanders
...did not execute a written waiver detailing the rights he would be giving up by waiving his right to appeal ( cf. People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222). The majority relies heavily on People v. Nicholson, a companion case to Lopez. In Nicholson, the defendant was a......
-
People v. Thomas, No. 87, No. 88, No. 89
...12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 267, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 [2011] ; People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222 [2006] ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ). The role played by......
-
People v. Brown,
...supplement to the oral colloquy. Still others fall into a gray area and provide opportunity for inconsistency.In People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222, the defendant executed a written waiver which "explained the appellate process." 2 He 992 N.Y.S.2d 304 was a......
-
People v. Batista, 2014–11805
...the defendant validly waived his right to appeal (see People v. Sanders , 25 N.Y.3d 337, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222 ). The defendant answered in the affirmative when the Supreme Court asked, "Do you understand that one of......