People v. Cline
| Decision Date | 29 April 1993 |
| Citation | 192 A.D.2d 957,596 N.Y.S.2d 925 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael A. CLINE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Joel A. Brenner, East Northport, for appellant.
Michael Kavanagh, Dist. Atty. (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb, of counsel), Kingston, for respondent.
Before LEVINE, J.P., and MERCURE, MAHONEY, CASEY and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), rendered March 26, 1991, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree.
The conviction at issue in this appeal stems from a 3 to 4-month undercover investigation by the Mid-Hudson Drug Enforcement Task Force and State Police of drug trafficking by defendant and Richard Hummer. During the course of the investigation, an undercover investigator made several purchases of cocaine from the two at various dates throughout July and August 1990. Following an August 28, 1990 undercover purchase of 72 grams of cocaine, defendant and Hummer were arrested. A multicount indictment subsequently was handed up charging defendant with numerous counts of possession, sale and conspiracy to sell narcotics. Just prior to the commencement of jury selection, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree in full satisfaction of all the pending charges. Before sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw the plea on grounds of mistake and erroneous legal advice. The motion was denied and defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 15 years to life. Claiming error in, among other things, County Court's refusal to vacate the plea and to suppress inculpatory statements, evidence seized from his home as a result of search and certain tape recordings of conversations had during three drug buys, defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's initial claim of error centers around the voluntariness of inculpatory statements made by him shortly after his arrest and of a written consent executed by him during that same period authorizing a search of his home. A review of the suppression hearing transcript reveals the presence of conflicting evidence by the police on the one hand and defendant on the other regarding the circumstances leading up to utterance of the statements and to authorization of the search. While defendant testified that these acts were involuntary because they were the result of coercion, threats and physical violence by the police, County Court credited the testimony of the police that defendant was fully advised of his Miranda rights prior to making any statements, understood his rights and knowingly and voluntarily waived them. Cognizant of the fact that credibility determinations made by the suppression court are to be accorded great deference (see, e.g., People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380; People v. Slater, 173 A.D.2d 1024, 1025-1026, 570 N.Y.S.2d 691, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 974, 574 N.Y.S.2d 954, 580 N.E.2d 426), and it being apparent from a review of the transcript that the court's determination is supported as a matter of law, there is no basis to disturb it (see,People v. Slater, supra; People v. Ingraham, 172 A.D.2d 870, 567 N.Y.S.2d 946).
Likewise, we see no abuse of discretion in County Court's refusal to permit defendant to withdraw his plea. While undoubtedly the demonstrated presence of fraud or mistake in inducing the plea or the lack of a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea is grounds for vacatur (see, e.g., People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170; People v. Cance, 155 A.D.2d 764, 547 N.Y.S.2d 702; People v. Randolph, 78 A.D.2d 566, 431 N.Y.S.2d 734), nothing of this sort was established here. Defendant's request for vacatur was premised upon allegations of mistake and change of circumstances. According to defendant, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. High
...131 A.D.3d 729, 730, 14 N.Y.S.3d 591 [2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1041, 22 N.Y.S.3d 171, 43 N.E.3d 381 [2015] ; People v. Cline, 192 A.D.2d 957, 958, 596 N.Y.S.2d 925 [1993], lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1071, 601 N.Y.S.2d 590, 619 N.E.2d 668 [1993] ). Further, the mere presence of defendant's goddau......
-
People v. Layboult
...Recognizing that credibility determinations made by the suppression court are to be accorded great deference (see, People v. Cline, 192 A.D.2d 957, 596 N.Y.S.2d 925, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1071, 601 N.Y.S.2d 590, 619 N.E.2d 668; People v. Harper, 165 A.D.2d 897, 560 N.Y.S.2d 508, lv. denied 7......
-
People v. Martino
...they are not "model[s] of clarity", they are sufficiently audible and intelligible to be admitted into evidence (People v. Cline, 192 A.D.2d 957, 959, 596 N.Y.S.2d 925, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1071, 601 N.Y.S.2d 590, 619 N.E.2d 668; see, People v. Mitchell, 220 A.D.2d 813, 814, 632 N.Y.S.2d 29......
-
People v. Goss
...however, belies defendant's claim and instead reveals that his plea was entered into knowingly and voluntarily (see, People v. Cline, 192 A.D.2d 957, 596 N.Y.S.2d 925, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1071, 601 N.Y.S.2d 590, 619 N.E.2d 668). Defendant's responses to County Court's questions prior to pl......