People v. Sosa

• Decision Date: 09 February 1999
• Citation: 685 N.Y.S.2d 658,258 A.D.2d 312
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 1335 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pedro SOSA, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 658

685 N.Y.S.2d 658

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 1335

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pedro SOSA, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Feb. 9, 1999.

Vincent Rivellese, for Respondent.

Mark K. Zeno, for Defendant-Appellant.

SULLIVAN, J.P., ROSENBERGER, NARDELLI and RUBIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Alderberg, J.), rendered November 6, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea was properly denied after defendant was afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard. In light of defendant's unsubstantiated claims of innocence, the sentencing court's inquiry was sufficient (see, People v. Mims, 216 A.D.2d 104, 628 N.Y.S.2d 278, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 783, 631 N.Y.S.2d 628, 655 N.E.2d 725). Further, as the record clearly indicates no basis for allowing withdrawal of the plea, defense counsel's decision not to join in defendant's pro se motion did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Kelly, 232 A.D.2d 314, 649 N.Y.S.2d 130), nor was appointment of new counsel required by defense counsel's refusal to adopt defendant's motion (People v. Simpson, 238 A.D.2d 193, 656 N.Y.S.2d 724). A fair reading of the record fails to support defendant's claim that his counsel took a position adverse to defendant on the plea withdrawal motion.