People v. Granton
| Decision Date | 24 February 1997 |
| Citation | 655 N.Y.S.2d 49,236 A.D.2d 624 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Kareem GRANTON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Malvina Nathanson, New York City, for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Bruce D. Austern, of counsel), for respondent.
Before O'BRIEN, J.P., and THOMPSON, JOY and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pesce, J.), rendered November 29, 1995, convicting him of rape in the first degree (two counts), sodomy in the first degree (two counts), assault in the second degree, robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
It is well settled that a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the court (see, People v. McGriff, 216 A.D.2d 330, 627 N.Y.S.2d 773; People v. Jones, 214 A.D.2d 623, 626 N.Y.S.2d 809). The court's denial, after a hearing, of the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea was not an improvident exercise of discretion. The plea minutes show that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered his plea of guilty (see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170), and no evidence was adduced at the hearing to substantiate the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and coercion (see also, People v. Negron, 222 A.D.2d 327, 635 N.Y.S.2d 615; People v. Bowden, 186 A.D.2d 362, 588 N.Y.S.2d 162). There is nothing in the record which would warrant disturbing the hearing court's resolution of the credibility issues (see, People v. Pastrana, 101 A.D.2d 817, 475 N.Y.S.2d 130).
The defendant's argument that the sentencing court should have granted him youthful offender status is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to object or to move to withdraw his plea on this ground (see, People v. Bermudez, 177 A.D.2d 323, 576 N.Y.S.2d 26). In any event, when the nature of the crimes, in which the victim was beaten, restrained, raped, sodomized, and robbed by a gang of youths, is taken into consideration along with the defendant's role in the attack, the denial of youthful offender treatment was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v. Madera, 167 A.D.2d 485, 562 N.Y.S.2d 156; People v. Smith,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Moralez
... ... Granton, 236 A.D.2d 624, 655 N.Y.S.2d 49; People v. Stevens, 167 A.D.2d 363, 562 N.Y.S.2d 445; People v. Maybeck, 157 A.D.2d 861, 551 N.Y.S.2d 807). In any event, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying him youthful offender treatment, given that he admittedly committed several ... ...
-
People v. Montello
... ... Vera, 206 A.D.2d 494, 614 N.Y.S.2d 547). Moreover, as the sentence imposed by the court was that which was negotiated as part of the plea agreement, the defendant has no cause to complain that his sentence was excessive (People v. Granton, 236 A.D.2d 624, 655 N.Y.S.2d 49; People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816, 475 N.Y.S.2d 351) ... The defendant's remaining contention is without merit ... BRACKEN, ... ...
-
People v. King
...review his contention that the court erred in neither considering nor granting him youthful offender status (see, People v. Granton, 236 A.D.2d 624, 625, 655 N.Y.S.2d 49, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1012, 658 N.Y.S.2d 250, 680 N.E.2d 624). In any event, the court did not abuse its discretion in fa......
-
People v. Marcia
...is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to object or move to withdraw his plea on this ground (see, People v. Granton, 236 A.D.2d 624, 655 N.Y.S.2d 49; People v. Williams, 204 A.D.2d 371, 614 N.Y.S.2d 138). In any event, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in d......