People v. Smith

• Decision Date: 14 April 1997
• Citation: 238 A.D.2d 450,657 N.Y.S.2d 345
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. James SMITH, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 345

657 N.Y.S.2d 345

238 A.D.2d 450

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. James SMITH, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department.

April 14, 1997.

Cristina D'Amato-Arvoy, White Plains, for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Jodi L. Mandel, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rienzi, J.), rendered February 15, 1996, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

At sentencing the defendant claimed that his plea was involuntary because of the effect of medication upon him. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the defendant's claim was without merit based on the plea minutes, the hospital after-care letter, defense counsel's statements during the sentencing proceeding, and its own observation of the defendant during the plea proceeding (see, People v. Pica, 112 A.D.2d 325, 491 N.Y.S.2d 775; People v. Bangert, 107 A.D.2d 752, 484 N.Y.S.2d 117; People v. Parizo, 78 A.D.2d 863, 432 N.Y.S.2d 627). Moreover, since the defendant's basis for his application to withdraw his plea was facially without merit, no formal evidentiary hearing was necessary (see, People v. Billings, 208 A.D.2d 941, 617 N.Y.S.2d 864; People v. Morris, 118 A.D.2d 595, 499 N.Y.S.2d 13).

Furthermore, the defendant was afforded meaningful representation of counsel (see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

BRACKEN, J.P., and O'BRIEN, SANTUCCI, FRIEDMANN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.