People v. Joseph

• Decision Date: 14 June 2001
• Citation: 726 N.Y.S.2d 259,284 A.D.2d 197
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>RONNELL JOSEPH, Also Known as JUVAL JONES, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

284 A.D.2d 197

726 N.Y.S.2d 259

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v.RONNELL JOSEPH, Also Known as JUVAL JONES, Appellant.

Decided June 14, 2001.

Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

Defendant's motion to vacate judgment was properly denied after a thorough hearing. There is no basis upon which to disturb the court's determinations concerning credibility, including its decision to discredit defendant's assertions that the attorney who represented defendant at the time of his plea used abusive language toward defendant. The record of the CPL 440.10 hearing, taken together with the record of the plea, which was a thorough and careful allocution, and the sentencing proceedings, establish that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary and that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404; People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543). Counsel's efforts to persuade defendant that a guilty plea would be in his best interest, described by defendant on appeal as "unrelenting pressure," amounted to nothing more than "competent counsel's candid advice about the risks of going to trial" (United States v Davis, 239 F3d 283, 286; see also, People v Coco, 220 AD2d 312, lv denied 86 NY2d 872).