People v. Lopez
- Decided
- February 16, 2006
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- New York
Cited 5,909 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- acknowledging that “[i]t would be even better to secure a written waiver” but finding an oral colloquy sufficient — Renert v. Lee (2020)
- “[W]hen a defendant enters into a guilty plea that includes a valid waiver of the right to appeal, that waiver includes any challenge to the severity of the sentence.” — Booker v. Capra (2021)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
OPINION OF THE COURT Chief Judge Kaye.
Can a criminal defendant who has validly waived the right to appeal nonetheless ask the Appellate Division to exercise its interest-of-justice jurisdiction to reduce a sentence? We answer that question in the negative, though in so doing we underscore the critical nature of a court’s colloquy with a defendant explaining the right relinquished by an appeal waiver.
People v Lopez Following arrest and indictment for possession and sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, defendant Lopez pleaded guilty to a reduced charge. In exchange for this plea, the court promised to impose a sentence of imprisonment of 21/2 to 5 years. At the time of the plea, defendant waived his right to appeal on the record, both verbally and in writing. Despite this waiver, on January 14, 2004, defendant, acting pro se, filed a timely notice of appeal, noting only that he would appeal the “conviction and/or sentence.” After appointment by the Appellate Division, appellate counsel argued that the Court should reduce defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice despite his waiver of the right to appeal.
Cite this
People v. Lopez, 844 N.E.2d 1145 (2006)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.