People v. Davis
| Decision Date | 21 November 1988 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. John DAVIS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Trezza, Kane & Effron, Red Hook (Albert R. Trezza, of counsel), for appellant.
William V. Grady, Dist. Atty., Poughkeepsie (Bridget Rahilly Steller, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and LAWRENCE, RUBIN, HARWOOD and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), rendered October 18, 1984, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see, People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 524-525, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332; People v. Howard, 138 A.D.2d 525, 526 N.Y.S.2d 132). The defendant acknowledged that he had ample opportunity to discuss his guilty plea with his attorney and to consider the proposed plea agreement. Moreover, during the plea allocution he provided a full factual recitation detailing his participation in the crime charged. His decision to enter a guilty plea appeared calculated to limit his sentencing exposure. During the change of plea proceedings, the court promised the defendant a sentence of an indeterminate term of from 4 to 8 years imprisonment as a second felony offender. If convicted after trial of the crimes charged in the indictment the defendant faced a maximum sentence of an indeterminate term of from 7 1/2 to 15 years imprisonment. These facts coupled with the judicial policy favoring finality in disposition of guilty pleas (People v. Frederick, supra ) support the conclusion that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court's denial of the defendant's request for a one or two-week adjournment to enable him to discuss the proposed plea agreement with his family or its failure to hold anevidentiary hearing on his nonspecific claim of incompetency of defense counsel does not demonstrate that the guilty plea was involuntarily entered, particularly in light of the defendant's prior exposure to the criminal justice system.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hollman
... ... Brown, 14 N.Y.3d at 116, 897 N.Y.S.2d 674, 924 N.E.2d 782 ; see People v. Lockwood, 178 A.D.3d 855, 856, 111 N.Y.S.3d 547 ; People v. Johnson, 170 A.D.3d 1195, 1196, 94 N.Y.S.3d 876 ; People v. Bandelt, 304 A.D.2d 835, 760 N.Y.S.2d 506 ; 197 A.D.3d 485 People v. Davis, 144 A.D.2d 576, 534 N.Y.S.2d 429 ). The plea allocution manifests the defendant's understanding of the terms of the plea agreement, including the sentencing promise, which was clearly explained to him, and the limited circumstances under which he would be permitted to withdraw the guilty plea ... ...
-
People v. McClurkin
... ... Laurent, 58 A.D.3d 754, 872 N.Y.S.2d 161;People v. Anderson, 230 A.D.2d at 917, 647 N.Y.S.2d 91;People v. Kai Ming Hou, 193 A.D.2d 759, 598 N.Y.S.2d 984;People v. Davis, 161 A.D.2d 787, 556 N.Y.S.2d 664;People v. Davis, 144 A.D.2d 576, 534 N.Y.S.2d 429). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, his attorney was not obligated to participate in a baseless pro se motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, which was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made ... ...
-
People v. Hollman
... ... is not one of those "rare instances" in which a ... hearing was required ( People v Brown , 14 N.Y.3d at ... 116; see People v Lockwood, 178 A.D.3d 855, 856; ... People v Johnson, 170 A.D.3d 1195, 1196; People ... v Bandelt , 304 A.D.2d 835; People v Davis , 144 ... A.D.2d 576). The plea allocution manifests the ... defendant's understanding of the terms of the plea ... agreement, including the sentencing promise, which was ... clearly explained to him, and the limited circumstances under ... which he would be permitted ... ...
-
People v. Figueroa
... ... counsel and the defendant pro se, the court did not abuse its discretion by subsequently denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, CPL 220.60[3]; People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 524-525, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332; People v. Davis, 144 A.D.2d 576, 534 N.Y.S.2d 429; People v. Howard, 138 A.D.2d 525, 526 N.Y.S.2d 132). The record does not support the defendant's additional pro se claim that prior to denying the motion to withdraw the plea, the court should have questioned him concerning his statements in the Probation ... ...