People v. Ernst

Decision Date10 November 2016
Citation40 N.Y.S.3d 691,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 07551,144 A.D.3d 1605
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tiffany J. ERNST, Defendant-appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

144 A.D.3d 1605
40 N.Y.S.3d 691
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 07551

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Tiffany J. ERNST, Defendant-appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Nov. 10, 2016.


40 N.Y.S.3d 692

David P. Elkovitch, Auburn, for Defendant–Appellant.

Jon E. Budelmann, District Attorney, Auburn (Brian T. Leeds Of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND CURRAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

144 A.D.3d 1605

On appeal from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20 ) and petit larceny (§ 155.25), defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in summarily denying her motion to withdraw her plea at sentencing and “should

144 A.D.3d 1606

have inquired further” into her grounds for the motion. Defendant sought to withdraw her plea on the basis that it was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered. Specifically, defendant contends that she was “confused” at the time of the plea and that the court was aware of her unspecified “mental health issues.” We reject defendant's contentions. When first presented with the motion, “the court afforded defendant the requisite ‘reasonable opportunity to present [her] contentions' ” and explain the basis of the motion (People v. Lindsay, 134 A.D.3d 1452, 1452, 21 N.Y.S.3d 656, lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 967, 36 N.Y.S.3d 628, 56 N.E.3d 908, quoting People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 ; see People v. Manor, 121 A.D.3d 1581, 1582, 993 N.Y.S.2d 424, affd. 27 N.Y.3d 1012, 35 N.Y.S.3d 272, 54 N.E.3d 1143 ). We conclude that, on this record, nothing more was required before the court decided the motion.

It is well settled that “[p]ermission to withdraw a guilty plea rests solely within the court's discretion ..., and refusal to permit withdrawal does not constitute an abuse of that discretion unless there is some evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in inducing the plea” (People v.

40 N.Y.S.3d 693

Watkins, 107 A.D.3d 1416, 1416, 966 N.Y.S.2d 637, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 959, 977 N.Y.S.2d 190, 999 N.E.2d 555 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPL 220.60[3] ; People v. Anderson, 63 A.D.3d 1617, 1618, 879 N.Y.S.2d 784, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 858, 891 N.Y.S.2d 692, 920 N.E.2d 97 ). Here, defendant's conclusory claims concerning her mental health issues are “ ‘unsupported by any medical proof, ... [and do] not raise a sufficient question of fact regarding the voluntariness of [her] plea so as to require an evidentiary hearing’ ” (People v. Russell, 79 A.D.3d 1530, 1531, 913 N.Y.S.2d 427 ; see People v. McNair [Appeal No. 1], 186 A.D.2d 1089, 1089, 590 N.Y.S.2d 789, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 1028, 592 N.Y.S.2d 678, 607 N.E.2d 825 ). Even if one were to credit defendant's self-reports that she suffered from some mental health issues in the past, we note that it is well settled that “[a] history of prior mental illness or treatment does not itself call into question [a] defendant's competence” (People v. Taylor, 13 A.D.3d 1168, 1169, 787 N.Y.S.2d 539, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 836, 796 N.Y.S.2d 591, 829 N.E.2d 684 ; see People v. Young, 66 A.D.3d 1445, 1446, 885 N.Y.S.2d 860, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 912, 895 N.Y.S.2d 326, 922 N.E.2d 915 ). As for defendant's state of mind at the time of the plea, there is nothing in the record to support defendant's assertion that her alleged mental health issues undermined her“ ‘ability to understand the terms and consequences of [her] guilty plea’ ” (People v. Tracy, 125 A.D.3d 1517, 1518, 3 N.Y.S.3d 256, lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 1008, 38 N.Y.S.3d 117, 59 N.E.3d 1229 ), or otherwise “so stripped [her] of orientation or cognition that [s]he lacked the capacity to plead guilty” (People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482, 486, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802 ; see People v. Wolf, 88 A.D.3d 1266,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • People v. Vazquez
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 4 octobre 2019
    ...of the plea], defendant proceeded with the colloquy with no further indication of any confusion" ( People v. Ernst, 144 A.D.3d 1605, 1607, 40 N.Y.S.3d 691 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1144, 52 N.Y.S.3d 296, 74 N.E.3d 681 [2017] ). Defendant further contends that the court abused it......
  • People v. Scott
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 10 novembre 2016
  • People v. Long, 543
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 1 mai 2020
    ...). Inasmuch as defendant tendered no such evidence on his motion, we perceive no abuse of discretion (see People v. Ernst, 144 A.D.3d 1605, 1606–1607, 40 N.Y.S.3d 691 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1144, 52 N.Y.S.3d 296, 74 N.E.3d 681 [2017] ; People v. Torres, 117 A.D.3d 1497, 1497–......
  • People v. Massey
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 30 juin 2017
    ...inducing the plea’ ( People v. Noce, 145 A.D.3d 1456, 1457, 43 N.Y.S.3d 626 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Ernst, 144 A.D.3d 1605, 1606, 40 N.Y.S.3d 691lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 1144, 52 N.Y.S.3d 296, 74 N.E.3d 681 ), and there is no such evidence here. Although defendant alle......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT