People v. Barton

• Decision Date: 16 January 2014
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 00250,113 A.D.3d 927,978 N.Y.S.2d 446
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph BARTON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

113 A.D.3d 927
978 N.Y.S.2d 446
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 00250

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Joseph BARTON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Jan. 16, 2014.

Louis N. Altman, Hurley, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., ROSE, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.

McCARTHY, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered October 13, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree.

Defendant and his son, codefendant Jay Debberman, were charged in an indictment

[978 N.Y.S.2d 447]

with criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. Defendant elected to represent himself and moved to suppress the marihuana that had been seized from their residence. Pursuant to a plea agreement reached in the midst of the suppression hearing, he and Debberman withdrew their pending suppression motion, and defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court later denied the joint applications of defendant and Debberman to withdraw their guilty pleas and sentenced defendant, consistent with the plea agreement, to a conditional discharge. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. While defendant asserted a variety of arguments in his motion to withdraw the guilty plea, he appears to solely contend here that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea proceedings. “Whether a defendant should be permitted to withdraw his or her plea rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and, generally, such a motion should not be granted absent a showing of innocence, fraud or mistake in the inducement” (People v. Galvan, 107 A.D.3d 1058, 1058, 966 N.Y.S.2d 286 [2013] [citation omitted], lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 1042, 972 N.Y.S.2d 539, 995 N.E.2d 855 [2013]; see People v. Arnold, 102 A.D.3d 1061, 1062, 958 N.Y.S.2d 540 [2013] ). Defendant chose to represent himself after being fully informed by the court that he would not be permitted hybrid representation, i.e., to proceed pro se and also have standby counsel at the table to advise him ( see People v. Rodriguez, 95 N.Y.2d 497, 501, 719 N.Y.S.2d 208, 741 N.E.2d 882 [2000]; People v. Mirenda, 57 N.Y.2d 261,...