People v. Holmes
| Decision Date | 24 March 2003 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>CHRISTOPHER HOLMES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see CPL 220.60; People v Dickerson, 163 AD2d 610 [1990]). The defendant's claims of coercion and ineffectiveness of counsel, upon which the motion was based, are belied by the record (see People v Charles, 256 AD2d 472 [1998]).
The defendant has foreclosed appellate review of his claim that his statutory right to a speedy trial was violated (see CPL 30.30) by entering a plea of guilty (see People v Prescott, 66 NY2d 216, 219-220 [1985]; People v Kenrick, 233 AD2d 528 [1996]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
People v. Bruno
...51 A.D.3d 824, 824, 856 N.Y.S.2d 862; People v. Mosley, 50 A.D.3d 1161, 1161, 855 N.Y.S.2d 378; People v. Holmes, 303 A.D.2d 690, 691, 756 N.Y.S.2d 778). The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court ( see P......
- Unger v. Dover Union Free School District