People v. Santana
| Decision Date | 26 December 1989 |
| Citation | 156 A.D.2d 736,550 N.Y.S.2d 356 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. David SANTANA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Pamela Peters, of counsel), for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood and Janet M. Berk, of counsel; Alyson Gill, on the brief), for respondent.
Before BROWN, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, SULLIVAN and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), both rendered April 8, 1987, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts) and endangering the welfare of a child under Indictment No. 7249/86, and sodomy in the first degree (41 counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), sodomy in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child under Indictment No. 751/87, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to hear and report on the defendant's motion to withdraw his pleas, on which motion the defendant's appellate counsel shall represent him, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court, Kings County, is to file its report with all convenient speed.
On March 18, 1987, the defendant entered pleas of guilty to numerous counts of sodomy and sexual abuse in connection with two pending indictments. The transcript of the plea indicates that the defendant was informed of and waived his so-called Boykin rights (see, Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170), that he acknowledged that he had been given an adequate opportunity to consult with his attorney, and that he was pleading guilty voluntarily. After the factual allocution, the defendant's pleas of guilty were duly entered.
At sentence several weeks later, the defendant made a pro se application for permission to withdraw his guilty pleas, alleging that he had been confused ever since he was arrested and that he had not been given adequate information regarding the charges against him. Believing that the defendant did not think he had been adequately represented, defense counsel asked to be relieved. Without passing upon this request, the sentencing court asked defense counsel whether he thought that he had had an adequate opportunity to discuss the matter with the defendant before the plea was entered. Thereupon, defense counsel embarked on a lengthy dissertation regarding all that he had done on the defendant's behalf, and remarked that "the defendant is now having a change of heart in spending seven and a half to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guzman v. Sabourin
...attorney was asked to comment on the merits of defendant's pro se motion to withdraw guilty plea); People v. Santana, 156 A.D.2d 736, 737, 550 N.Y.S.2d 356, 358 (N.Y.App.Div.1989) ("If the court deemed it necessary to obtain factual information from defense counsel, it should have assigned ......
-
People v. Gilmer
...attorney failed to inform him of the plea offer (see People v. Stephens, 291 A.D.2d 841, 841–842, 737 N.Y.S.2d 889 ; People v. Santana, 156 A.D.2d 736, 737, 550 N.Y.S.2d 356 ; see 993 N.Y.S.2d 605generally People v. Lewis, 2 N.Y.3d 224, 228–229, 777 N.Y.S.2d 798, 809 N.E.2d 1106 ). Finally,......
-
People v. Etienne
...v. Caple, 279 A.D.2d 635, 635, 720 N.Y.S.2d 166 ; cf. People v. Armstead, 126 A.D.3d 805, 806, 5 N.Y.S.3d 260 ; People v. Santana, 156 A.D.2d 736, 736, 550 N.Y.S.2d 356 ).The defendant's separate contention, not raised on his motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty, that his pleas were not k......
-
People v. Curry, 105843
...1014–1015, 868 N.Y.S.2d 807 [2008], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 817, 881 N.Y.S.2d 25, 908 N.E.2d 933 [2009], quoting People v. Santana, 156 A.D.2d 736, 737, 550 N.Y.S.2d 356 [1989] ) or if counsel makes remarks that “affirmatively undermine” a defendant's arguments (People v. Pimentel, 108 A.D.3d ......