People v. Bullard, 2004-02583.
| Decision Date | 10 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | 2004-02583. |
| Citation | 821 N.Y.S.2d 912,2006 NY Slip Op 07365,33 A.D.3d 715 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH BULLARD, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
An application to withdraw a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the court (see People v Turner, 23 AD3d 503 [2005]). The defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily admitted his guilt in a thorough and complete allocution, during which he denied that he was threatened or induced by promises to plead guilty (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Telfair, 299 AD2d 429 [2002]; People v Ramsingh, 267 AD2d 406 [1999]). Moreover, the Supreme Court conducted a sufficient inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the defendant's application to withdraw his plea of guilty (see People v Fiumefreddo, supra at 543; People v Felix, 20 AD3d 433 [2005]; People v Dunlop, 228 AD2d 692 [1996]). The defense counsel was given every opportunity to state the grounds for the application to withdraw the plea, and the defendant was given permission to add whatever he wanted to say but declined to do so. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's application to withdraw his plea of guilty.
The defendant's contention raised in point two of his supplemental pro se brief is unpreserved for appellate review, and his remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kosse
...N.Y.S.2d 58; People v. Douglas, 83 A.D.3d 1092, 921 N.Y.S.2d 324; People v. Collazo, 45 A.D.3d 857, 845 N.Y.S.2d 757; People v. Bullard, 33 A.D.3d 715, 821 N.Y.S.2d 912). Here, in deciding whether to grant the defendant's pro se application to withdraw his plea of guilty, the Supreme Court ......
- People v. Bullard
- People v. Burgos