People v. Jerome
| Decision Date | 27 September 2012 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Scott JEROME, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
98 A.D.3d 1188
951 N.Y.S.2d 586
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06325
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Scott JEROME, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Sept. 27, 2012.
[951 N.Y.S.2d 587]
John A. Cirando, Syracuse, for appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Hannah Stith Long of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, STEIN, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ.
STEIN, J.
[98 A.D.3d 1188]Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered July 20, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree in full satisfaction of an eight-count indictment and waived his right to appeal. The plea agreement provided that defendant would be sentenced to three years in prison, to be followed by 1 1/2 years of postrelease supervision. Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw his plea on the ground that his plea was not entered into voluntarily, knowingly or intelligently. County Court denied the motion and thereafter imposed the agreed-upon sentence. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. “Whether to allow withdrawal of a guilty plea is left to the sound discretion of County Court, and will generally not be permitted absent some evidence of innocence, fraud or mistake in its inducement”
( People v. Mitchell, 73 A.D.3d 1346, 1347, 901 N.Y.S.2d 405 [2010],lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 922, 913 N.Y.S.2d 649, 939 N.E.2d 815 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord People v. Wilson, 92 A.D.3d 981, 981, 937 N.Y.S.2d 699 [2012] ). Here, defendant's contention that he did not understand what he was pleading guilty to or that he was to be sentenced to three years in prison under the plea agreement is belied by the record. A review of the plea colloquy reveals that defendant had previously discussed the plea and its consequences with counsel, was fully apprised by County Court of the [98 A.D.3d 1189]terms of the plea agreement and heard and understood the terms prior to entering his plea. Accordingly, we conclude that County Court's denial of defendant's motion was a sound exercise of its discretion ( see People v. Keating, 96 A.D.3d 1107, 1108, 945 N.Y.S.2d 582 [2012];People v. Waters, 80 A.D.3d 1002, 1003, 914 N.Y.S.2d 781 [2011],lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 858, 923 N.Y.S.2d 420, 947...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Howard
...a hearing ( see [988 N.Y.S.2d 728]People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482, 485–486, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802 [2002];People v. Jerome, 98 A.D.3d 1188, 1188–1189, 951 N.Y.S.2d 586 [2012],lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 987, 958 N.Y.S.2d 702, 982 N.E.2d 622 [2012] ). Defendant's claim that he received t......
-
People v. Seuffert
...denied15 N.Y.3d 922, 913 N.Y.S.2d 649, 939 N.E.2d 815 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord People v. Jerome, 98 A.D.3d 1188, 1188, 951 N.Y.S.2d 586 [2012],lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 987, 958 N.Y.S.2d 702, 982 N.E.2d 622 [2012] ). In his motion to withdraw his plea, defend......
-
People v. Radage
...as a risk level III sex offender. Defendant appeals. Initially, we are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that the case summary [951 N.Y.S.2d 586]—which was based upon a review of defendant's presentence investigation, prior criminal history and postoffense behavior—was insufficient, sta......
-
People v. Pickett, 105748
...on appeal which are more properly pursued in a motion pursuant to CPL article 440, where a record could be made (see People v. Jerome, 98 A.D.3d 1188, 1189, 951 N.Y.S.2d 586 [2012], lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 987, 958 N.Y.S.2d 702, 982 N.E.2d 622 [2012] ). Given, among other considerations, the a......