People v. Bray

• Decision Date: 07 February 1991
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jimmy BRAY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 332

565 N.Y.S.2d 332

170 A.D.2d 722

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jimmy BRAY, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

Feb. 7, 1991.

David Seth Michaels, Spencertown, for appellant.

Robert C. Hunter, Millerton, for respondent.

Before MAHONEY, P.J., and CASEY, LEVINE, MERCURE and HARVEY, JJ.

MERCURE, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Zittell, J.), rendered October 3, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of three counts of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was indicted for three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, arising out of separate sales of cocaine to an undercover police officer. Defendant made pretrial motions for various relief, hearings were conducted and the matter proceeded to trial. After the prosecution presented its case and defendant testified on his own behalf, a plea bargain was reached whereby defendant entered a plea of guilty to each count of the indictment with the understanding that the sentences to be imposed would not exceed an aggregate prison term of 5 to 15 years. At the time fixed for sentencing, defendant's attorney made an oral motion to withdraw defendant's guilty plea upon the grounds that defendant was not satisfied with the legal representation he received, that defendant entered the plea "against his own judgment", and that defendant felt threatened or coerced into pleading guilty because of "possible perjury charges which may have been brought" against him. County Court denied the motion and proceeded to sentence defendant in accordance with the plea bargain to concurrent prison terms of 5 to 15 years. Defendant appeals, contending only that County Court erred in denying the motion to withdraw his plea of guilty without conducting a "limited interrogation" to determine the basis for the motion.

We affirm. Contrary to defendant's assertion, the Trial Judge, after ascertaining the prosecution's position on defendant's motion and then stating his own views on the matter, did give defendant an adequate opportunity to speak on his own behalf (see, People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544). Defendant declined to make a statement at that time (see, People v. Oliver, 163 A.D.2d 686, 558 N.Y.S.2d 706), did not raise the claim of ineffective counsel in a posttrial application (see, People v. Ramos, 63 N.Y.2d 640, 643, 479 N.Y.S.2d 510, 468 N.E.2d 692, cf., People v. Braun, 167 A.D.2d 164, 561 N.Y.S.2d 244; People v. Jones, 95 A.D.2d 869, 870, 463 N.Y.S.2d 888), and even now gives no indication of the manner in which his legal representation is claimed to have been deficient. Moreover, based upon his participation in the pretrial motions, hearings and the trial of the indictment, as well as the lengthy plea proceeding, the Trial...