People v. Holloway

2026 NY Slip Op 00678
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 11, 2026
Docket65 KA 23-00330
StatusPublished

This text of 2026 NY Slip Op 00678 (People v. Holloway) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Holloway, 2026 NY Slip Op 00678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

People v Holloway (2026 NY Slip Op 00678)
People v Holloway
2026 NY Slip Op 00678
Decided on February 11, 2026
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 11, 2026 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CURRAN, J.P., BANNISTER, SMITH, OGDEN, AND DELCONTE, JJ.

65 KA 23-00330

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

DARRELL HOLLOWAY, ALSO KNOWN AS DARRELL J. HOLLOWAY, ALSO KNOWN AS SNOOP, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.


THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ABIGAIL D. WHIPPLE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

KEVIN T. FINNELL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.



Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Melissa Lightcap Cianfrini, J.), rendered December 13, 2022. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third 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 criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.16 [1]). Contrary to defendant's contention, a waiver of the right to appeal is not unconscionable per se (see People v Wilson, 244 AD3d 1802, — [4th Dept 2025]; People v Brinkman, 240 AD3d 1431, 1431-1432 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1027 [2025]; see also People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 557-558 [2019], cert denied — US —, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]). Further, the record establishes that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see Brinkman, 240 AD3d at 1432). The valid waiver encompasses defendant's challenge to the severity of his sentence (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Hoose, 236 AD3d 1294, 1296 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 993 [2025]).

Entered: February 11, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Lopez
844 N.E.2d 1145 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2026 NY Slip Op 00678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-holloway-nyappdiv-2026.