People v. Beaver
| Decision Date | 04 May 2017 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Horace R. BEAVER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
150 A.D.3d 1325
54 N.Y.S.3d 712
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Horace R. BEAVER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
May 4, 2017.
Paul R. Corradini, Elmira, for appellant.
Matthew Van Houten, District Attorney, Ithaca (Alyxandra Stanczak of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY, EGAN JR., MULVEY and AARONS, JJ.
AARONS, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tompkins County (Rowley, J.), rendered July 10, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal sexual act in the second degree, attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal contempt in the first degree (two counts).
In satisfaction of a seven-count indictment and other charges, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sexual act in the second degree, attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and two counts of criminal contempt in the first degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court denied defendant's subsequent motion to withdraw his plea and thereafter sentenced him, in accordance with the plea agreement, to an aggregate prison term of four years followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.
We are unpersuaded by defendant's sole contention that County Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. "Whether to permit a defendant to withdraw his or her plea of guilty is left to the sound discretion of County Court, and withdrawal will generally not be permitted absent some evidence of innocence, fraud or mistake in its inducement" (People v. Farnsworth, 140 A.D.3d 1538, 1539, 34 N.Y.S.3d 713 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). The nature and extent of the necessary fact-finding procedures in order to decide a motion to withdraw the plea is within the trial court's discretion "and a limited interrogation by the court will often be sufficient" (People v. Cadet, 144 A.D.3d 1335, 1336, 41 N.Y.S.3d 434 [2016], lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 1143, 52 N.Y.S.3d 295, 74 N.E.3d 680 [2017] ). "An evidentiary hearing is rarely necessary and is required only where the record presents a genuine question of fact as to voluntariness" (People v. Miles, 138 A.D.3d 1350, 1351, 30 N.Y.S.3d 390...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Simpson
...shot him. Recantation evidence is inherently unreliable and insufficient alone to justify withdrawal of a plea (see People v. Beaver, 150 A.D.3d 1325, 1325–1326, 54 N.Y.S.3d 712 [2017] ). This alleged statement, written by the victim during a brief period that he and defendant were both inc......
- People v. Podeswa
-
People v. Brown
...v. Farnsworth, 140 A.D.3d 1538, 1539, 34 N.Y.S.3d 713 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord People v. Beaver, 150 A.D.3d 1325, 1325, 54 N.Y.S.3d 712 [2017] ). For the reasons previously stated, we reject defendant's contention that his plea was involuntary as the r......
-
People v. Simpson
...who shot him. Recantation evidence is inherently unreliable and insufficient alone to justify withdrawal of a plea (see People v Beaver, 150 A.D.3d 1325, 1325 -1326 [2017]). This alleged statement, written by the victim during a brief period that he and defendant were both incarcerated at t......