People v. Meyers

• Decision Date: 09 May 1994
• Citation: 204 A.D.2d 492,614 N.Y.S.2d 167
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Anthony MEYERS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 167

614 N.Y.S.2d 167

204 A.D.2d 492

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Anthony MEYERS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

May 9, 1994.

Edwin Ira Schulman, Kew Gardens, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, Tammy J. Smiley, and Alexander H. Gardner, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J.), rendered June 2, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record clearly establishes that he voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal as part of his plea agreement. Accordingly, he cannot now challenge the propriety of the hearing court's denial of his suppression motion (see, People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108; People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022; People v. Butler, 198 A.D.2d 427, 605 N.Y.S.2d 915; People v. Carter, 191 A.D.2d 640, 595 N.Y.S.2d 219).

We further reject the defendant's claim that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see, CPL 220.60[3]; People v. DeJesus, 199 A.D.2d 529, 606 N.Y.S.2d 255; People v. McMahon, 163 A.D.2d 588, 559 N.Y.S.2d 675). The defendant pleaded guilty after a complete and detailed plea allocution, during which he was fully apprised of the consequences of his plea (see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170). Moreover, the factual admissions made by the defendant during his plea allocution were sufficient to establish the elements of the crime, and his subsequent unsubstantiated claim of innocence did not warrant vacatur of the plea (see, People v. Butler, supra; People v. McDowell, 198 A.D.2d 236, 604 N.Y.S.2d 801; People v. Smith, 192 A.D.2d 732, 598 N.Y.S.2d 735). Furthermore, although the defendant claimed at sentencing that he was pressured into pleading guilty by the prosecution's insistence that both he and his codefendant either accept a plea agreement or proceed to trial, the record demonstrates that the defendant's plea was voluntarily entered (see, People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental...