Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department · 2024 · Criminal Law
Criminal Lawcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degreeguilty pleaappealaffirmedcompanion appealmemorandum by reference
Facts
The opinion states only that defendant was convicted upon a guilty plea of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The judgment appealed from was rendered by Supreme Court, Monroe County, on September 6, 2018. No additional underlying facts are set out in this opinion. The court resolved the appeal by incorporating the memorandum from the companion appeal.
Issue
Whether the judgment convicting defendant upon his guilty plea of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree should be affirmed. The specific substantive appellate issues are not stated in this opinion because the court relied on the memorandum in the companion appeal.
Rule
When the court states that an appeal is resolved by the same memorandum as a companion appeal, the reasoning and governing analysis are those set forth in that companion memorandum rather than repeated in the present opinion.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Albany, the intermediate appellate court reviews Noah Mercer’s conviction after a guilty plea. Its entire analysis states: “Judgment affirmed. Same memorandum as in the companion appeal involving this defendant decided today.”
If a student wants to identify the court’s substantive reasoning from this opinion alone, which is the best answer?
Explanation. When an appellate court states that the case is resolved by the same memorandum as a companion appeal, the operative reasoning is the reasoning set out in that companion memorandum, not in the abbreviated opinion itself. This opinion alone supplies the disposition, but not the substantive analysis. (Derived from People v. Blake (n.d.).)