People v. Dennis

• Decision Date: 20 June 2002
• Citation: People v. Dennis, 295 A.D.2d 755, 744 N.Y.S.2d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>MARCUS R. DENNIS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

295 A.D.2d 755

744 N.Y.S.2d 534

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v.MARCUS R. DENNIS, Appellant.

Peters, J.

Decided June 20, 2002.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

Peters, J.

In July 1999, defendant was indicted on one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. In March 2000, defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty, which was accepted in full satisfaction of that indictment, as well as a second indictment charging him with two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. In April 2000, defendant made a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and coercion by his attorney. After the appointment of new counsel, defendant's motion was denied and he was subsequently sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate prison term of 4½ to 9 years. Defendant appeals.

Initially, we note that "[t]he question of whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea rests within the sound discretion of the trial court * * * and absent a showing of abuse, that court's determination will not be disturbed" (People v Bonilla, 285 AD2d 746, 747). Upon our review of the record, we find that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion. The transcript of the plea allocution demonstrates that the court engaged in a detailed colloquy with defendant and ascertained that he understood the ramifications of his plea and that he did, in fact, commit the crime at issue (see, People v Dawson, 278 AD2d 665, 667-668, lv denied 96 NY2d 799; People v Gibson, 261 AD2d 710, 711).

Defendant's contention that the plea allocution was deficient because he failed to admit knowledge of the specific location of the drugs inside the apartment is unpersuasive. Defendant acknowledged that he brought the drugs to the apartment and that he retained control over them even though he had given them to his cousin to hold. In response to questioning by County Court, defendant unequivocally admitted to the knowing possession of the drugs with the intent to sell them. Under the circumstances presented, we find that "defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea following a sufficient inquiry by County Court, during which time defendant admitted his guilt to the requisite elements of the crime[] charged" (People v Dove, 236 AD2d 644, 644; see, Penal Law § 220.16 [1]).

Similarly, we find defendant's contentions regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel to be without merit, as the record establishes that defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Defendant's attorney made appropriate motions and successfully negotiated a very favorable plea, resulting in the dismissal of the companion indictment and the imposition...