People v. Molloy

Decision Date18 April 2006
Docket Number2005-04418.,Ind. No. 04-777.,Ind. No. 04-776.,2005-04419.
Citation2006 NY Slip Op 2919,816 N.Y.S.2d 99,28 A.D.3d 681
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH MOLLOY, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

After according the defendant sufficient opportunity to be heard, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]; People v. Rodriguez, 17 AD3d 267, 268 [2005]). Under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel because the information allegedly provided by the defendant's attorney concerning the possible scope of sentencing options in the event of conviction after trial, even if erroneous, did not affect the defendant's decision to plead guilty and caused no prejudice to the defendant (see People v. McDonald, 1 NY3d 109, 115 [2003]; People v. Garcia, 92 NY2d 869 [1998]; People v. Nicholas, 8 AD3d 300, 300-301 [2004]; People v. McKenzie, 4 AD3d 437, 438 [2004]; see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 US 52, 59-60 [1985]; People v. Escalante, 16 AD3d 984, 985 [2005]). The defendant's claim of innocence was contradicted by his plea allocution, and did not warrant the withdrawal of his pleas (see People v. Rodriguez, supra). Thus, the defendant's pleas of guilty were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Miller, J.P., Ritter, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Duran, 2009 NY Slip Op 31488(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 6/1/2009)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • June 1, 2009
    ... ... As the defendant's bare assertion of innocence is contradicted by the plea minutes, his motion to vacate the judgment on this ground is denied. People v. Molloy, 28 A.D.3d 681 (2d Dept.), lv. denied, 7 N.Y.3d 792 (2006); People v. Solis, 302 A.D.2d 542 (2d Dept.), lv. denied, 99 N.Y.2d 658 (2003); People v. Potter, 294 A.D.2d 603 (2d Dept.), lv. denied, 98 N.Y.2d 771 (2002).3 ...         The Defendant's Claim That he was Deprived of his Right to ... ...
  • People v. Estrada, 2007 NY Slip Op 32688(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 8/2/2007)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • August 2, 2007
    ... ... Estrada does not allege that his attorney's failure to ascertain the information surrounding his 1983 conviction affected his decision to plead guilty, and his attorney's omission caused no prejudice to the defendant (McDonald, 1 NY3d 109, 115; People v. Molloy, 28 A.D.3d 681; 816 N.Y.S.2d 99 [2006]), the defendant does not provide sufficient facts to reach a conclusion that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a trial. Consequently, we conclude that defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel under either the State ... ...
  • People v. Myron
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 18, 2006
  • People v. Molloy
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 12, 2006

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT