People v. Riley
| Decision Date | 27 May 1986 |
| Citation | 120 A.D.2d 752,503 N.Y.S.2d 71 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. John RILEY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Schoer & Sileo, Garden City (Michael G. Sileo, of counsel), for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood and Shulamit Rosenblum, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and THOMPSON, NIEHOFF, RUBIN and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered May 19, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty.
Judgment affirmed.
The record reveals that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his rights and pleaded guilty (see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170). Criminal Term did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea inasmuch as the record does not support the defendant's claim that his plea was coerced, nor does it provide any other ground for withdrawal of his plea (see, People v. Ramos, 63 N.Y.2d 640, 642-643, 479 N.Y.S.2d 510, 468 N.E.2d 692). Contrary to his contention, the record reveals that the defendant entered his plea after numerous discussions with competent counsel. The defendant admitted that these discussions included advice as to his possible defenses.
Lastly, we note that a defendant who accepts a bargained-for plea forfeits his right to challenge the factual basis for the plea (see, People v. Pelchat, 62 N.Y.2d 97, 108, 476 N.Y.S.2d 79, 464 N.E.2d 447; People v. Clairborne, 29 N.Y.2d 950, 951, 329 N.Y.S.2d 580, 280 N.E.2d 366). Accordingly, we reject the defendant's argument that the factual recitation of the underlying crime was insufficient to support his plea.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oyague v. Artuz
...to his express representations at the plea allocution (see, People v. Melendez, 135 A.D.2d 660, 522 N.Y.S.2d 235; People v. Riley, 120 A.D.2d 752, 503 N.Y.S.2d 71). The plea allocution was adequate as to the assault in the first degree count (see, People v. McGowen, 42 N.Y.2d 905, 397 N.Y.S......
-
People v. Mullen
...( see People v. Oyague, 237 A.D.2d 311, 655 N.Y.S.2d 377; People v. Sampson, 156 A.D.2d 492, 493, 548 N.Y.S.2d 916; People v. Riley, 120 A.D.2d 752, 503 N.Y.S.2d 71). The defendant's remaining contentions are either waived, forfeited, or based on matter dehors the record ( see People v. Ram......
-
People v. Oyague
...to his express representations at the plea allocution (see, People v. Melendez, 135 A.D.2d 660, 522 N.Y.S.2d 235; People v. Riley, 120 A.D.2d 752, 503 N.Y.S.2d 71). The plea allocution was adequate as to the assault in the first degree count (see, People v. McGowen, 42 N.Y.2d 905, 397 N.Y.S......
-
People v. Sampson
...no evidence to support the claim and instead indicates that his plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered (see, People v. Riley, 120 A.D.2d 752, 503 N.Y.S.2d 71). Finally, the defendant is precluded from seeking review of the hearing court's determination of his motion challenging the audi......