People v. Ripley, 94 A.D.3d 1554

Zаchary v. Ripley, 942 NYS2d 919 (App. Div. 4th Dept. 2012) - Wait, let me check the case name. The case info starts with “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Ripley, Appellant.” Citation: 942 NYS2d 919. Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York (indicated by “Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey and Sconiers, JJ.” which is typical for NY AD 4th Dept). Date: Rendered July 2, 2010 (Judgment), but the appeal decision date isn‘t explicitly on this page, however the citation provided 942 NYS2d 919 is the repоrter cite. Looking at the top of the page, it shows “1554” and “1555” which are page numbers. The document starts with the end of a previous case. I should skip that and start with “The People of the State of New York... v Christopher Ripley“. Case 1: People v. Christopher Ripley Case 2: People v. Stephen O. Williams, Jr. The instructions say: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Since there are two full cases here (Ripley and Williams), and the prompt asks for “the” provided legal document, usually this implies the first full one found. However, looking at the layout, both are complete summaries/memorandums. I will focus on the first full case starting on page 1554: People v. Ripley. Wait, looking at the screenshots: Page 1 starts with the end of a case. Then a new case starts: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Ripley, Appellant.” This case ends on page 1555 with “Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.” Then a new case starts: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephen O. Williams, Jr., Appellant.” I will convert the first full opinion: People v. Ripley. Case Info for Ripley: Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Ripley, Appellant. Short Name: People v. Ripley Docket: [942 NYS2d 919] (This is the citation, but often used as an identifier in these volumes) Court: N.Y. App. Div. (4th Dept.) - based on the judges Scudder, Smith, Fahey, Sconiers. Date: The judgment was July 2, 2010. The decision date isn‘t explicitly on the snippet, but 2012 is the year for 942 NYS2d. I‘ll omit the date attribute if not clear, or use the volume date if known. Actually, I should stick to what‘s in the text. The judgment date is July 2, 2010. Wait, let‘s look at the structure again. The document starts with a partial case. I skip that. Then Case 1: People v. Riplеy. Then Case 2: People v. Williams. The prompt says: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” Technically, Ripley is the first complete one. Case Information: Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v CHRISTOPHER RIPLEY, Appellant. Citation: 942 NYS2d 919 Judge: M. William Boller, A.J. Court: Supreme Court, Erie County (Judgment appealed from); NY App. Div. (Reviewing court) Date: July 2, 2010 (judgment datе) Let‘s refine the conversion. Page 1554 starts. Case Ripley starts. Page 1555 starts mid-Ripley. Ripley ends. Williams starts. I will convert People v. Ripley. Metadata: shortName=“People v. Ripley” docket=“” (No docket number provided besides citation) court=“N.Y. App. Div.” citation=“942 N.Y.S.2d 919” Text: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Ripley, Appellant. [942 NYS2d 919]—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered July 2, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree.” “It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.” “Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). We reject defendant‘s contention that he did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to appeal. Contrary to defendant‘s contention, Supreme Court “engage[d] the defendant in an adequаte colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Wright, 66 AD3d 1334 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 912 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Further, the record as a whole establishes “that the defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; see People v Korber, 89 AD3d 1543, 1543 [2011]). Contrary to defendant‘s further contention, a “waiver of the right to аppeal [is] not rendered invalid based on the court‘s failure to require [the] defendant to articulate the waiver in his [or her] own words” (People v Dozier, 59 AD3d 987, 987 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 815 [2009]; see People v Thompson, 70 AD3d 1319, 1319-[page 1555]1320 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 845 [2010], reconsideration denied 15 NY3d 810 [2010]; People v Ludlow, 42 AD3d 941, 942 [2007]). In addition, defendant‘s waiver of the right to appeal is not invalid on the ground that the court did not specifically advise defendant that his general waiver of the right to appeal encompassed any challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 736-737 [1998]; see generally People v Eron, 79 AD3d 1774, 1775 [2010]; People v Tantao, 41 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 882 [2007]).” “Defendant‘s contention that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for youthful offender status is encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Farewell, 90 AD3d 1502, 1502 [2011]; People v Harris, 77 AD3d 1326 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 743 [2011]). Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.” Wait, the “Present” line at the bottom of the previous partial case was: “Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey and Sconiers, JJ.” The “Present” line for Ripley is: “Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.” Formatting check: Case names in ``. Law citations in ``. Pagination markers ``. Citations: - People v Wright, 66 AD3d 1334 [2009] -> case=“People v. Wright“, cite=“66 A.D.3d 1334“, court=“N.Y. App. Div.“, date=“2009” - 13 NY3d 912 [2009] -> court=“N.Y.” - Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2] -> Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2] - People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 -> case=“People v. Lopez“, cite=“6 N.Y.3d 248“, court=“N.Y.“, date=“2006” - People v Korber, 89 AD3d 1543 -> case=“People v. Korber“, cite=“89 A.D.3d 1543“, court=“N.Y. App. Div.“, date=“2011” - People v Dozier, 59 AD3d 987 -> case=“People v. Dоzier“, cite=“59 A.D.3d 987“, court=“N.Y. App. Div.“, date=“2009” - 12 NY3d 815 -> court=“N.Y.” - People v Thompson, 70 AD3d 1319 -> case=“People v. Thompson“, cite=“70 A.D.3d 1319“, court=“N.Y. App. Div.“, date=“2010” - 14 NY3d 845 -> court=“N.Y.” - 15 NY3d 810 -> court=“N.Y.” - People v Ludlow, 42 AD3d 941 -> case=“People v. Ludlow“, cite=“42 A.D.3d 941“, court=“N.Y. App. Div.“, date=“2007” - People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733 -> case=“People v. Hidalgo“, cite=“91 N.Y.2d 733“, court=“N.Y.“, date=“1998” - People v Eron, 79 AD3d 1774 -> case=“People v. Eron“, cite=“79 A.D.3d 1774“, court=“N.Y. App. Div.“, date=“2010” - People v Tantao, 41 AD3d 1274 -> case=“People v. Tantao“, cite=“41 A.D.3d 1274“, court=“N.Y. App. Div.“, date=“2007” - 9 NY3d 882 -> сourt=“N.Y.” - People v Farewell, 90 AD3d 1502 -> case=“People v. Farewell“, cite=“90 A.D.3d 1502“, court=“N.Y. App. Div.“, date=“2011” - People v Harris, 77 AD3d 1326 -> case=“People v. Harris“, cite=“77 A.D.3d 1326“, court=“N.Y. App. Div.“, date=“2010” - 16 NY3d 743 -> court=“N.Y.” Wait, on page 1555, there‘s another case “The People of the State of New York ... v Stephen O. Williams, Jr.“. The instruction says to convert only the MAIN opinion if there are multiple. Ripley is a full opinion. Williams is also a full opinion. Usually “main” means the first one that has a full caption. Ripley is the first full one. I‘ll proceed with Ripley. One thing to check: “Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]“. I‘ll wrap them as separate laws or one range. The instructions say “Range - use first section“. Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2] is probably safest. Or individual. Actually, instructions say: “Each citation gets its own tag“. But for “Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]“, it‘s two sections of the same code. I‘ll do: Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]. Also, need to handle the brackets in the OCR like “Supreme Court engage[d] the defendant“. The OCR text has “Supreme Court engage[d] the defendant“. The original text has: Supreme Court “engage[d] the defendant in аn ade- quate colloquy... Pagination: Page 1554 starts the Ripley case near the middle. Page 1555 starts mid-sentence: “1319-[midpage-ps n=“1555“]1320 [2010]“. Let‘s do this. One detail: “[942 NYS2d 919]” appears in the header section of Ripley. This looks like the reporter citation being inserted into the caption line by the reporter editors. Metadata for Ripley: case-name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v CHRISTOPHER RIPLEY, Appellant. shortName: People v. Ripley citation: 942 N.Y.S.2d 919 court: N.Y. App. Div. (based on “AD3d” citations and the “Present” line format) date: Judgment rendered July 2, 2010. Appeal decided year 2012 (based on 942 NYS2d). I‘ll use the rendering date 2010 for the caption metadata if no other date is shown. Actually, standard practice for these volumes is that the decision date is at the beginning of the term, but it‘s not on this snippet. I will omit `date` in the `` if not explicitly provided as a decision date. I will include the citation. Wait, I should check the judges. Scudder, Smith, Fahey, Sconiers are the judges for the previous case (which I‘m skipping). Riplеy has Centra, Peradotto, Sconiers, Martoche. HTML Construction: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v CHRISTOPHER RIPLEY, Appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York 942 N.Y.S.2d 919 Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered July 2, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree. It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‍his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). We reject defendant‘s contention that he did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to appeal. Contrary to defendant‘s contention, Supreme Court “engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Wright, 66 AD3d 1334 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 912 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Further, the record as a whole establishes “that the defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; see People v Korber, 89 AD3d 1543, 1543 [2011]). Contrary to defendant‘s further contention, a “waiver of the right to appeal [is] not rendered invalid based on the court‘s failure to require [the] defendant to articulate the waiver in his [or her] own words” (People v Dozier, 59 AD3d 987, 987 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 815 [2009]; see People v Thompson, 70 AD3d 1319, 1319-1320 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 845 [2010], reconsideration denied 15 NY3d 810 [2010]; People v Ludlow, 42 AD3d 941, 942 [2007]). In addition, defendant‘s waiver of the right to appeal is not invalid on the ground that the court did not specifically advise defendant that his general waiver of the right to appeal encompassed any challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 736-737 [1998]; see generally People v Eron, 79 AD3d 1774, 1775 [2010]; People v Tantao, 41 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 882 [2007]). Defendant‘s contention that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for youthful offender status is encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Farewell, 90 AD3d 1502, 1502 [2011]; People v Harris, 77 AD3d 1326 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 743 [2011]). Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ. Wait, the prompt says “Convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” Both Ripley and Williams are essentiаlly the same length and completeness. I‘ll convert both or just the first full one? Usually, a “legal opinion document” might contain several memorandum decisions. If I convert just Ripley, am I missing the document? The prompt says “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion“. Actually, in NY Law Reports, these are a series of short “Memorandum Decisions“. If I follow “convert only the main opinion“, and Ripley is the first full one, I‘ll do that. However, looking at page 1555, Williams starts. It is alsо a complete decision. In a multi-opinion PDF, if there isn‘t a single clearly “main” case (e.g. one long one and several summary ones), I will provide the first full one encountered. Re-evaluating “MAIN opinion“. In some reporter PDFs, there‘s one featured case and then summary orders. Here they are all summary memorandums. I‘ll stick to the first one: People v. Ripley. Wait, looking at the instruction again: “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at thе beginning of the document.” This implies that the first full case is what I should focus on. Refining the metadata: docket=“942 NYS2d 919” This is actually the citation. Docket numbers in NY are usually like “KA 10-01234“. It‘s not here. I‘ll put the cite in citation and keep docket empty or use the bracketed cite as a docket-like identifier if needed, but it‘s really a cite. Actually, I‘ll leave docket out as it‘s not provided. Citation logic for NY: “66 AD3d 1334” -> “66 A.D.3d 1334” “13 NY3d 912” -> “13 N.Y.3d 912” “Penal Law §§ 110.00” -> jurisdiction=“NY“, cite=“N.Y. Penal Law § 110.00” Wait, I should check if there‘s any text I missed. OCR says: “lv denied 9 NY3d 882 [2007]).” Snippet shows: “lv denied 9 NY3d 882 [2007]).” Wait, looking at page 1555 top: “1274, 1275 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 882 [2007]).” The OCR for page 2 has some repetition: “lv denied 9 NY3d 882 [2007], [2007]). lv denied 9 NY3d 882“. I must follow the screenshot text exactly. Screenshot: “AD3d 1274, 1275 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 882 [2007]).” The OCR is messy. I will follow the screenshot. Screenshot text for the end of Ripley: “Defendant‘s contention that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for youthful offender status is encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Farewell, 90 AD3d 1502, 1502 [2011]; People v Harris, 77 AD3d 1326 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 743 [2011]). Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.” Wait, one mоre thing. The instruction “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“. The caption and intro paragraph: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Ripley, Appellant. [942 NYS2d 919]—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered July 2, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree.” This intro paragraph contains the facts of the conviction. I will keep it in the body if it‘s not рart of the standard formal caption block. In NY reports, this italicized/indented block is the syllabus/intro. The syllabus starts with the parties and citation. I‘ll put the party names in `midpage-case-name`. I‘ll put the “Appeal from...” part in `midpage-other-metadata`. Wait, the instructions: “Include ALL content before the main opinion text: ... Syllabus / “Held:” sections ... any other prefatory material“. But also: “Caption separator characters: ) or | ... Remove ... Case caption blocks (if already fully extracted to Case Information) — do not repeat court name, party names, or docket in the body“. Okay, so I‘ll put the party names and reporter info in metadata. The “Appeal from...” sentence is prefatory material. I‘ll include it. Final check on citations: “People v Thompson, 70 AD3d 1319, 1319- [page 1555] 1320 [2010]” I will split this across the page break. Corrected Citation for Thompson: People v Thompson, 70 AD3d 1319, 1319-1320 [2010] Wait, the instruction: “Place at word boundaries, not mid-word“. “1319-1320” -> “1319-” [break] “1320“. That‘s a boundary. One more law: “Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]“. NY rеports usually cite this way. Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2] Let‘s begin. ```html Case Information THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v CHRISTOPHER RIPLEY, Appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‍Fourth Department, New York 942 N.Y.S.2d 919 Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered July 2, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree. It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglаry in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). We reject defendant‘s contention that he did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to appeal. Contrary to defendant‘s contention, Supreme Court “engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Wright, 66 AD3d 1334 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 912 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Further, the record as a whole establishes “that the defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; see People v Korber, 89 AD3d 1543, 1543 [2011]). Contrary to defendant‘s further contention, a “waiver of the right to appeal [is] not rendered invalid based on the court‘s failure to require [the] defendant to articulate the waiver in his [or her] own words” (People v Dozier, 59 AD3d 987, 987 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 815 [2009]; see People v Thompson, 70 AD3d 1319, 1319-1320 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 845 [2010], reconsideration denied 15 NY3d 810 [2010]; People v Ludlow, 42 AD3d 941, 942 [2007]). In addition, defendant‘s waiver of the right to appeal is not invalid on the ground that the court did not specifically advise defendant that his general waiver of the right to appeal encompаssed any challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 736-737 [1998]; see generally People v Eron, 79 AD3d 1774, 1775 [2010]; People v Tantao, 41 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 882 [2007]). Defendant‘s contention that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for youthful offender status is encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Farewell, 90 AD3d 1502, 1502 [2011]; People v Harris, 77 AD3d 1326 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 743 [2011]). Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ. ``` Wait, I should check the judges again. For Ripley, the text at the bottom says “Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.” But at the top of page 1554, it says “Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey and Sconiers, JJ.” The Scudder panel belongs to the *previous* case (which I‘m skipping). The Centra panel belongs to Ripley. Check the cite for Lopez: `People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]`. My tag: `People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]` Correct. Check the cite for Hidalgo: `People v ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‍Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 736-737 [1998]`. My tag: `People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 736-737 [1998]` Correct. Check the cite for Eron: `People v Eron, 79 AD3d 1774, 1775 [2010]`. My tag: `People v Eron, 79 AD3d 1774, 1775 [2010]` Correct. Check the cite for Tantao: `People v Tantao, 41 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 882 [2007]`. My tags: `People v Tantao, 41 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 882 [2007]` Correct. Wait, I need to make sure I don‘t miss the square brackets in the names like “M. William Boller, A.J.“. The OCR says “M.Williаm Boiler“. I see in the screenshot it is “M. William Boller“. One detail in Ripley: “Supreme Court ‘engage[d] the defendant...‘“. Original has curly-ish quotes: “engage[d] ... choice” I will use straight quotes: “engage[d] ... choice” One final check on Law Citations: Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2] My tags: `Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]` This follows “Each citation gets its own tag“. One more: “lv denied 13 NY3d 912 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]” The internal quotation marks explanation is outside the case tag. Correct. I will output the Ripley case. One small thing: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephen O. Williams, Jr., Appellant. [943 NYS2d 714]” starts on page 1555. This is a second opinion. I‘ll skip it as per “convert only the MAIN opinion“. Wait, does “MAIN opinion” mean the one that takes up most of the PDF or just the first one? In legal databases, a document like this would be split into separate entries. If I am acting as a converter for a single document that happens to have two entries, and I‘m asked to convert the document, I might consider if “document” refers to the whole snippet. But the instruction “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case...” strongly suggests that if there is a partial one at the start, I skip it and do the next one. If there are two full ones, the first full one is the “main” one for that context. I‘ll proceed with Ripley. One catch: `Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey and Sconiers, JJ.` is at the end of the previous partial opinion. I skip it. Ripley starts with: `The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Ripley, Appellant.` The panel for Ripley is at the end: `Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.` Wait, the intro text: `Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered July 2, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree.` I will include this. One detail: `lv denied` should be outside the tag? No, usually `lv denied` and the following citation are part of the full citation string in NY practice. However, instructions say “Subsequent history: Each citation in its own tag“. Example: `..., aff‘d, ...` So `lv denied` goes outside. Example: `(Peoplev Wright, 66 AD3d 1334 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 912 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted])` Tagging: `(People v Wright, 66 AD3d 1334 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 912 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted])` Wait, `People v Wright` is cited. The next is `lv denied 13 NY3d 912`. The instruction says for subsequent history: `Smith v. Jones, 262 F.3d 305 (4th Cir. 2001), aff‘d, 535 U.S. 100 (2002)` So yes, `lv denied` is like `aff‘d`. Wait, `lv denied` is “leave denied“. It‘s subsequent history. One more check: `(see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 736-737 [1998]; see generally People v Eron, 79 AD3d 1774, 1775 [2010]; Peоple v Tantao, 41 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 882 [2007])` Tags: `(see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 736-737 [1998]; see generally People v Eron, 79 AD3d 1774, 1775 [2010]; People v Tantao, 41 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 882 [2007])` Wait, `see` is a signal. Signals go outside. Correct. Final check on Ripley‘s citation “[942 NYS2d 919]“. This is the citation for Ripley. I‘ll put it in `942 N.Y.S.2d 919`. One detail: “70 AD3d 1319, 1319-1320“. The hyphen is on the line break. “1319- [page 1555] 1320” Rejoining hyphenated line breaks rule: “Do NOT rejoin actual compound words... Rejoin ALL hyphenated line breaks...“. Wait, page ranges like “1319-1320” aren‘t compound words, but they are a single “word” unit in citations. Rejoining seems appropriate. However, “Place at word boundaries, not mid-word“. “1319-1320” is one cite string. The hyphen is a boundary. I‘ll do: `1319-1320`. The date attribute for Ripley is not present as a decision date. I will omit it. One more thing: the panels. Scudder panel: Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey and Sconiers, JJ. Centra panel: Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ. Ripley decision finishes with the Centra panel. Final HTML structure: ... parties + cite (Actually, caption says party names and docket/cite) The instructions say: “Caption separator characters: ) or | ... Remove ... Case caption blocks (if already fully extracted to Case Information) — do not repeat court name, party names, or docket in the body“. So I won‘t repeat the parties/cite in the body. I‘ll start with the syllabus paragraph. Intro sentence: “Appeal from a judgment...” This is syllabus/prefatory. I‘ll include it. Wait, looking at the layout: The People... Appellant. [942 NYS2d 919]—Appeal ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‍from a... degree. This whole block is the header/syllabus. I‘ll extract parties to midpage-case-name. I‘ll extract cite to midpage-citation. I‘ll keep the “Appeal from...” sentence in the body or in midpage-other-metadata? Instructions say: “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“. Also: “Include ALL content before the main opinion text: Syllabus / “Held:” sections...“. Syllabus is often prefatory. I will put the syllabus paragraph in the body since it contains the core summary of the case. ```html Case Information THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v CHRISTOPHER RIPLEY, Appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York 942 N.Y.S.2d 919 Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered July 2, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree. It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). We reject defendant‘s contention that he did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to аppeal. Contrary to defendant‘s contention, Supreme Court “engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Wright, 66 AD3d 1334 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 912 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Further, the record as a whole establishes “that the defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; see People v Korber, 89 AD3d 1543, 1543 [2011]). Contrary to defendant‘s further contention, a “waiver of the right to appeal [is] not rendered invalid based on the court‘s failure to require [the] defendant to articulate the waiver in his [or her] own words” (People v Dozier, 59 AD3d 987, 987 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 815 [2009]; see People v Thompson, 70 AD3d 1319, 1319-1320 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 845 [2010], reconsideration denied 15 NY3d 810 [2010]; People v Ludlow, 42 AD3d 941, 942 [2007]). In addition, defendant‘s waiver of the right to appeal is not invalid on the ground that the court did not specifically advise defendant that his general waiver of the right to appeal encompassed any challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 736-737 [1998]; see generally People v Eron, 79 AD3d 1774, 1775 [2010]; People v Tantao, 41 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 882 [2007]). Defendant‘s contention that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for youthful offender status is encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Farewell, 90 AD3d 1502, 1502 [2011]; People v Harris, 77 AD3d 1326 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 743 [2011]). Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ. ``` Wait, `reconsideration denied` in Thompson cite. `lv denied 14 NY3d 845 ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‍[2010], reconsideration denied 15 NY3d 810 [2010]` Should be: `lv denied 14 NY3d 845 [2010], reconsideration denied 15 NY3d 810 [2010]` Correct. Wait, `it is well settled that` text at the top of page 1 is part of the *previous* case panel (Scudder). I skip it. Is the list of judges `Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.` a signature? In memorandum decisions, this is the court panel. It‘s not exactly a signature block like a district judge‘s name, but it is the identifier of the court. I‘ll leave it in a paragraph or a signature div. Actually, instructions say: “Skip signature images, preserve typed name and title.” In appellate memorandums, this “Present” line is standard. I‘ll put it in a `` or ``. Since it represents the court panel, I‘ll use a `div class=“midpage-signature“`. Wait, the prompt says “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one сase and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion“. If I have two full opinions (Ripley and Williams), I will just do the first one (Ripley). One check on shortName: “People v. Ripley” Party names: “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v CHRISTOPHER RIPLEY, Appellant.” Standard shortName would be `People v. Ripley`. Metadata: `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“` (Bluebook abbreviation for NY Appellate Division) Final check of the intro sentence. `Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered July 2, 2010.` I will include this in the body. The prompt requires: “Output raw HTML only. No code fences. No commentary.” Ready to generate.

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Ripley

Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date Published: Apr 27, 2012

Citations: 94 A.D.3d 1554; 942 N.Y.S.2d 919

Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.