People v. Manor, 62

• Citation: 27 N.Y.3d 1012,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03414,54 N.E.3d 1143,35 N.Y.S.3d 272
• Decision Date: 03 May 2016
• Docket Number: No. 62,62
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tyrone D. MANOR, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

27 N.Y.3d 1012
54 N.E.3d 1143
35 N.Y.S.3d 272
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03414

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent
v.
Tyrone D. MANOR, Appellant.

No. 62

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 3, 2016.

35 N.Y.S.3d 272

Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Kimberly F. Duguay of counsel), for appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Robert J. Shoemaker of counsel), for respondent.

35 N.Y.S.3d 273

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

54 N.E.3d 1144

27 N.Y.3d 1012

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant challenges the judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree (

27 N.Y.3d 1013

Penal Law § 125.25[1] ) and sentencing him, pursuant to the plea agreement, to 18 years to life in prison.

We agree with the Appellate Division that County Court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea without holding a hearing. Defendant had been provided with two alternative plea offers. The record shows that at the plea allocution, the court explained the two plea options and the rights that defendant was giving up by not going to trial. Defendant indicated that he understood and had discussed the guilty plea with his counsel. To the extent that defendant's statements during the plea colloquy raised a question regarding his intent to kill the victim, the trial court fulfilled its “duty to inquire further to ensure [the] guilty plea [was] knowing and voluntary” (People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ).

In moving to withdraw defendant's guilty plea, defendant's two attorneys submitted affirmations indicating that they were surprised that defendant had decided to take the plea, that he had not looked well on the date of the plea, and that he had been pressured to take the plea by family members. The motion was also supported by the report of a psychiatrist retained by defendant who had conducted a psychiatric examination of him approximately two months after the court had entered the guilty plea. The psychiatrist repeated the allegations of family pressure and further indicated that defendant's plea was impaired by his use of alcohol...