People v. Rodas

Decision Date27 July 1998
Citation252 A.D.2d 594,677 N.Y.S.2d 797
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Carlos Yepes RODAS, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

John Goldsmith, Middletown, for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie (Bridget Rahilly Steller, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MILLER, J.P., and THOMPSON, JOY and LUCIANO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered August 2, 1995, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. By decision and order dated April 7, 1997, this court remitted the matter to the County Court, Dutchess County, to hear and report on the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, and the appeal was held in abeyance in the interim (see, People v. Rodas, 238 A.D.2d 358, 656 N.Y.S.2d 54). The County Court, Dutchess County, has filed its report.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was coerced is without merit. At the hearing on the motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, the defendant's former attorney, Frank Redl, expressly contradicted the defendant's testimony that he had advised the defendant that the latter would not succeed at trial because Poughkeepsie was a "racist" town. The County Court credited Redl's testimony and rejected the defendant's testimony as not credible. On this record, we see no reason to disturb the County Court's determination as to the credibility of the witnesses (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380).

Redl's pessimistic assessment of the defendant's chances of succeeding at trial and his conclusion that the defendant would be subject to a lengthy prison sentence if convicted did not constitute coercion (see, People v. Jones, 232 A.D.2d 505, 648 N.Y.S.2d 331; People v. Spinks, 227 A.D.2d 310, 643 N.Y.S.2d 54; People v. Samuel, 208 A.D.2d 776, 617 N.Y.S.2d 494). The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleaded guilty (see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170). Accordingly, the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, People v. Jones, supra; People v. Palmeri, 227 A.D.2d 418, 642 N.Y.S.2d 555; People v. Samuel, supra).

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • People v. Rodas
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 22, 1999
    ...431 92 N.Y.2d 1053, 708 N.E.2d 188 People v. Carlos Yepes Rodas Court of Appeals of New York January 22, 1999 Ciparick, J. --- A.D.2d ----, 677 N.Y.S.2d 797 App.Div. 2, Dutchess Denied. ...

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