People v. Fears
Decision Date | 08 April 1985 |
Citation | 110 A.D.2d 712,488 N.Y.S.2d 26 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Johnny FEARS, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert Faraguna, Brooklyn, for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Dolores Kanski, Yonkers, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and MANGANO, THOMPSON and O'CONNOR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered August 10, 1983, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant's partially exculpatory statements made to the police before he was read his Miranda rights were admissible in evidence, and were properly not suppressed. The statements were made spontaneously and were not the product of police coercion or suggestion (see People v. Rogers, 48 N.Y.2d 167, 174, 422 N.Y.S.2d 18, 397 N.E.2d 709; People v. Maerling, 46 N.Y.2d 289, 302-303, 413 N.Y.S.2d 316, 385 N.E.2d 1245). Defendant's subsequent statements were made only after he was read his Miranda rights, including his right to have an attorney present at questioning, free of charge. He then acknowledged that he understood his rights, voluntarily waived them, and agreed to answer questions without an attorney being present (see, e.g., People v. Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285, 288-289, 476 N.Y.S.2d 788, 465 N.E.2d 327). Thus, the latter statements were admissible and the branch of defendant's motion which sought to suppress them was properly denied (see, e.g., People v. Grant, 45 N.Y.2d 366, 408 N.Y.S.2d 429, 380 N.E.2d 257; People v. Buxton, 44 N.Y.2d 33, 403 N.Y.S.2d 487, 374 N.E.2d 384).
Additionally, defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty was properly denied. Defendant's claims of innocence and duress are based only upon his unsupported allegations, which present an issue of credibility. Based upon this record, which shows that defendant unequivocally admitted his guilt at the plea allocution, defendant was not entitled to withdraw his plea (see People v. Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55, 57, 323 N.Y.S.2d 825, 272 N.E.2d 329; People v. Bangert, 107 A.D.2d 752, 484 N.Y.S.2d 117; People v. Matta, 103 A.D.2d 756, 477 N.Y.S.2d 228).
Finally, defendant's claim that the hearing court improperly interfered with and terminated defense counsel's cross-examination of the prosecution's witness at the suppression hearing has been considered and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Boehm, 2004 NY Slip Op 50945(U) (NY 8/30/2004)
...not show that he would have insisted on going to trial absent his counsel's allegedly ineffective assistance); People v. Fears, 110 A.D.2d 712, 488 N.Y.S.2d 26 (2d Dept. 1985)(court's refusal to allow plea withdrawal proper where defendant's claims of innocence and duress were based on unsu......
-
People v. Sanchez
...should not be disturbed (see, Elmendorf, 45 A.D.3d at 859; People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536 [1993]; see also, People v. Fears, 488 N.Y.S.2d 26, 27 [2d Dept. 1985]). The decision whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered guilty plea is within the sound discretion of ......
-
People v. Rosenthal
... ... guilt and did so knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently, ... there is no basis to disrupt a plea (see, People v ... Elmendorf, 45 A.D.3d 858, 859 [2d Dept. 2007]; and ... see, People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536 [1993]; ... see also, People v. Fears, 488 N.Y.S.2d 26, 27 [2d ... Dept. 1985]). Although applicable statute sets forth a ... procedure by which a defendant may seek to withdraw a ... previously entered guilty plea, courts are expected to grant ... these applications sparingly and only in cases where there is ... ...
-
People v. Barnett
...renders the plea procedurally or substantively defective ( see, People v. Stubbs, 110 A.D.2d 725, 487 N.Y.S.2d 824; People v. Fears, 110 A.D.2d 712, 488 N.Y.S.2d 26; People v. Bangert, 107 A.D.2d 752, 484 N.Y.S.2d 117). Moreover, in view of the fact that the defendant was afforded a reasona......