People v. Harris

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before MILLER
• Citation: 222 A.D.2d 522,635 N.Y.S.2d 258
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Russell HARRIS, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 11 December 1995

Page 258

635 N.Y.S.2d 258 222 A.D.2d 522 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Russell HARRIS, Appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Second Department. Dec. 11, 1995.

Gary Greenwald, Goshen, for appellant.

Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen (Richard B. Schoenberg, of counsel), for respondent.

[222 A.D.2d 523] Before MILLER, J.P., and O'BRIEN, PIZZUTO and KRAUSMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

[222 A.D.2d 522] Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered August 10, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, CPL 220.60[3]; People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332; People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544; People v. Ortiz, 216 A.D.2d 495, 628 N.Y.S.2d 559; People v. Lisbon, 187 A.D.2d 457, 589 N.Y.S.2d 527). The defendant knowingly and [222 A.D.2d 523] voluntarily admitted his guilt in a thorough and complete allocution. He indicated that he was entering the plea voluntarily, stated twice that no one had forced or coerced him to enter the plea of guilty, and averred that he was pleading guilty because he was in fact the perpetrator of the crime. Moreover, the testimony adduced at the evidentiary hearing in connection with the motion to withdraw the plea of guilty adequately demonstrated that the defendant's plea was the product of his free choice.

The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is refuted by the record of the plea proceeding in which the defendant admitted that he had a full and complete opportunity to speak to his attorneys, that he was satisfied with his attorneys' legal advice, and that he was satisfied with his legal representation in this case (see, People v. Richardson,

Page 259

14 A.D.2d 624, 624 N.Y.S.2d 960; People v. Zaia, 181 A.D.2d 931, 582 N.Y.S.2d 212). Additionally, the record of the evidentiary hearing demonstrates that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

The defendant's contention that his absence from a pretrial conference to discuss a possible plea agreement deprived him of the right to be present at a material stage of the trial is without merit. A...