People v. Ramsingh

• Decision Date: 20 December 1999
• Citation: 700 N.Y.S.2d 736
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,941 The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Robbie RAMSINGH, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 736

700 N.Y.S.2d 736

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,941

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Robbie RAMSINGH, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department, New York.

Dec. 20, 1999.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Lisa Drury of counsel; Thomas Chong on the brief), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J.), rendered March 21, 1997, convicting him of rape in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

It is well established that a guilty plea will be upheld as valid if it was entered into voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently (see, People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646; People v. Moissett, 76 N.Y.2d 909, 563 N.Y.S.2d 43, 564 N.E.2d 653; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170). Similarly well settled is the principle that the determination of whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, CPL 220.60; People v. McGriff, 216 A.D.2d 330, 627 N.Y.S.2d 773; People v. Ochoa, 179 A.D.2d 689, 579 N.Y.S.2d 114; People v. Rivera, 177 A.D.2d 664, 576 N.Y.S.2d 365).

The record fully supports the conclusion that the defendant voluntarily pleaded guilty with a full understanding of the consequences attendant thereto (see, People v. Dunlop, 228 A.D.2d 692, 644 N.Y.S.2d 981; People v. Guerrone, 208 A.D.2d 383, 617 N.Y.S.2d 16). Accordingly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw the plea.

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., RITTER, SANTUCCI, and FLORIO, JJ., concur.