People v. Santana

• Decision Date: 15 April 1985
• Citation: 488 N.Y.S.2d 408,110 A.D.2d 789
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Angel SANTANA, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 408

488 N.Y.S.2d 408

110 A.D.2d 789

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v.Angel SANTANA, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

April 15, 1985.

Steven G. Legum, Mineola (Robert J. Carlucci, Merrick, of counsel), for appellant.

Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Asst. Dist. Atty., Anthea H. Bruffee and Gerard Flanagan, of counsel), for respondent.

Before O'CONNOR, J.P., and RUBIN, LAWRENCE and EIBER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered August 22, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

At the sentencing proceeding, defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting that his drug abuse rendered him unable to form a criminal intent at the time of the homicide.This motion was properly denied.It is apparent from a review of the sentencing minutes that the defendant's allusions to his prior drug abuse were designed to elicit the court's sympathy and were not an assertion of his innocence.Moreover, his claim of being voluntarily intoxicated on the day of the murder is belied by the statements he made at both the plea and at sentencing, which clearly illustrated his intent to rob the deceased.For example, the defendant told of planning the robbery with his companion, of telling her not to choose anyone who might be too big for defendant to handle, and of his intent to "pinch" and then stab the victim.From these facts, it certainly appears that the defendant knew exactly what he was doing.As the court in ...