People v. Pearson
| Decision Date | 27 December 1976 |
| Citation | 390 N.Y.S.2d 430,55 A.D.2d 685 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Pinkney PEARSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Martin Geduldig, Floral Park, for appellant.
Nicholas Ferraro, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Thomas M. Russo, Floral Park, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MARTUSCELLO, Acting P.J., and LATHAM, HAWKINS and O'CONNOR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered August 12, 1975, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant was indicted on November 26, 1974 and charged with eight counts of robbery in the first degree and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and was arraigned on these charges on December 9, 1974. Several adjournments followed and, on March 12, 1975, at defendant's request, his assigned 18--B attorney (see County Law, article 18--B) Mr. Litwak, was relieved. The case was adjourned on defendant's promise that he would retain private counsel.
On or about March 21, 1975 defendant's demand for another adjournment for the same purpose was granted but the court at that time appointed Mr. Brett, another 18--B attorney, to represent defendant in the interim. Between March 21, 1975 and the date the guilty plea was entered, to wit, June 16, 1975, there were in excess of 20 adjournments, all, with few exceptions, upon defendant's demand and over the People's objection. In each instance, the basis of the adjournment was defendant's repeated plea that he needed time to secure his own attorney. In the course of time, Huntley and Wade hearings were conducted by his assigned counsel and, at one point, Pro se habeas corpus applications by defendant resulted in a drastic reduction in bail.
Shortly before the summer recess, on June 16, 1975, the case appeared on the calendar for trial and was marked 'ready' by the People. The case had now been on the calendar of the trial part for better than six months, but defendant demanded still another adjournment, again for the purpose of retaining private counsel.
There were on- and off-the-record discussions, during the course of which Mr. Brett, defendant's assigned counsel, an experienced and capable criminal trial lawyer, advised the court that defendant wished to withdraw his previously entered not guilty plea and to plead guilty to robbery in the second degree.
As the taking of the plea was being recorded, and after defendant had responded that he was acting voluntarily, he said, in response to a question from the court, that he thought he was being pressured since the court refused to grant him another adjournment. With apparent asperity the court then stated that the requested adjournment would be granted but 'with the clear understanding there will be no plea except robbery in the first degree.' The court went on to say that it was going to raise defendant's bail and 'I am going to fix bail consistent with the fact that this matter has been pending and the People have been ready to proceed to trial.' Following that exchange defendant said that the plea was voluntary, that he had possessed the gun during the robbery and that this would be his second felony conviction.
On August 12, 1975 defendant was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a term of imprisonment with a minimum of four years and a maximum of eight years and, according to the record, his only complaint at that time was not that his plea was improper or coerced, but that he was 'being sentenced with an attorney who is not of my choice.' It is now defendant's contention that he pleaded guilty under compulsion and that the court's attitude foreclosed any other course of action.
It is elementary that so-called 'plea-bargains' are not per se improper and that they play an important part in the administration of criminal justice, particularly in the disposition of today's heavy calendars. In Santobello v. New York (404 U.S. 257, 260, 92 S.Ct. 495, 498, 30 L.Ed.2d 427) the court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Hollmond
-
People v. Kinslow
... ... Lowrance, 41 N.Y.2d 303, 392 N.Y.S.2d 417, 360 N.E.2d 1099; People v. Modica, supra ). It is clear that defendant, a second felony offender, is criminally experienced and "knowing and knowledgeable in the ways of the criminal law" (People v. Pearson, 55 A.D.2d 685, 686, 390 N.Y.S.2d 430; see also People v. Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, 353, 287 N.Y.S.2d 659, 234 N.E.2d 687, cert. denied sub nom. Robinson v. New York, 393 U.S. 1067, 89 S.Ct. 721, 21 L.Ed.2d 709) ... Moreover, there is no merit to defendant's challenge to the ... ...
-
People v. Johnson
... ... The record establishes that “defendant knowingly and intelligently, with neither ‘confusion’ nor ‘coercion’ present ... , and with a full opportunity to assess the advantages and disadvantages of a plea versus a trial ... , made his election” ( People v. Pearson", 55 A.D.2d 685, 687, 390 N.Y.S.2d 430). \xC2" ... ...
-
People v. Johnson, 1155 KA 11-02314
...with a full opportunity to assess the advantages and disadvantages of a plea versus a trial ..., made his election” (People v. Pearson, 55 A.D.2d 685, 687, 390 N.Y.S.2d 430 ).It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously...