People v. Corwise
| Decision Date | 12 May 1986 |
| Citation | 120 A.D.2d 604,502 N.Y.S.2d 223 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Karl CORWISE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Elaine D. McKnight, Brooklyn, for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Felix M. Hester, on brief), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and THOMPSON, NIEHOFF, RUBIN and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered June 14, 1979, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
The plea allocution satisfies the standards set forth by the Court of Appeals in People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170. Although the defendant did not initially comprehend the court's instructions regarding the maximum sentence that could be imposed upon him for pleading guilty to one count of robbery in the first degree in satisfaction of three pending indictments, after a recess was granted the defendant acknowledged that he understood. Both the court and defense counsel correctly instructed the defendant on the applicable law and the defendant's plea was not predicated upon any misapprehension as to the permissible range of sentencing (cf. People v. Camacho, 102 A.D.2d 728, 476 N.Y.S.2d 566).
We also reject the defendant's contention that the court erred in denying his oral motion, made at the time of sentence, to withdraw his guilty plea based upon a claim that pressure from his family and codefendants had induced the plea. This is not one of those instances in which an evidentiary hearing was required (see, People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544). The defendant made only bald, conclusory allegations which were refuted by the record of the plea allocution. Accordingly, he was not entitled to withdraw the plea (People v. Matta, 103 A.D.2d 756, 477 N.Y.S.2d 228; People v. Sprow, 104 A.D.2d 1056, 480 N.Y.S.2d 961).
Nor did the court err in denying the defendant's oral motion for a psychiatric examination pursuant to CPL article 730. The law of this State is well settled that a defendant is not entitled, as a matter of right, to have the question of his capacity to stand trial passed upon before the commencement of trial, or the acceptance of a guilty plea, if the court is satisfied from the available information that there is no proper basis for questioning the defendant's capacity (People v. Armlin, 37 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 371 N.Y.S.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. Kuhlmann
...at 608 (citing, inter alia, People v. Armlin, 37 N.Y.2d 167, 371 N.Y.S.2d 691, 332 N.E.2d 870 (1975), and People v. Corwise, 120 A.D.2d 604, 502 N.Y.S.2d 223 (2d Dep't 1986)). The District Court concluded that Harris was not entitled to habeas relief on this claim because Harris's trial cou......
- People v. Conethan
-
People v. Lioto
...People v. Franco, 120 A.D.2d 609, 610, 502 N.Y.S.2d 82, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 757, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1044, 497 N.E.2d 714; People v. Corwise, 120 A.D.2d 604, 605, 502 N.Y.S.2d 223; People v. Mitchell, 90 A.D.2d 854, 456 N.Y.S.2d 107). Contrary to the contention of defendant, his factual admission......
-
People v. Handlin
...review and in any event is refuted by the record (see, People v. Mattocks, 100 A.D.2d 944, 474 N.Y.S.2d 849; see also, People v. Corwise, 120 A.D.2d 604, 502 N.Y.S.2d 223). To the extent that the defendant separately claims that his right to a speedy trial was violated, and to the extent th......