People v. Sparcino
| Decision Date | 12 November 2010 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph SPARCINO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
78 A.D.3d 1508
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Joseph SPARCINO, Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Nov. 12, 2010.
Hoffmann, Hubert & Hoffmann, LLP, Syracuse (Terrance J. Hoffmann of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Brenton P. Dadey of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25[2] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his motion to withdraw the plea on the ground that it was coerced without conducting a hearing. Contrary to the People's contention, the contention of defendant survives his waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Poleun, 75 A.D.3d 1109, 903 N.Y.S.2d 290; People v. Wright, 66 A.D.3d 1334, 885 N.Y.S.2d 794, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 912, 895 N.Y.S.2d 326, 922 N.E.2d 915). We nevertheless reject defendant's contention. "There exists no hard-and-fast rule [that] prescribes the nature and extent of the fact-finding procedures prerequisite to the disposition of motions to withdraw a plea of guilty previously entered" ( People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 524-525, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332). The court must allow the defendant an opportunity to present his or her claims such that it can make "an informed and prudent determination" ( id. at 525, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332). Here, defendant was afforded the requisite "reasonable opportunity to advance his claims" at sentencing, where there was extensive discussion of defendant's motion ( id.; see generally People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646).
Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Defendant admitted each element of the offense during his plea allocution and did not
claim either that he was innocent or that he had been coerced by defense counsel at that time. The court was presented with a credibility determination when defendant moved to withdraw his plea and advanced his belated claims of innocence and coercion, and it did not abuse its discretion in discrediting those claims ( see People v. Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55, 56, 323 N.Y.S.2d 825, 272 N.E.2d 329; see also People v. Ramos, 63 N.Y.2d 640, 642-643, 479 N.Y.S.2d 510, 468 N.E.2d 692)...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dale
...and voluntarily entered. Although defendant's contentions survive his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Sparcino, 78 A.D.3d 1508, 1509, 911 N.Y.S.2d 523, lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 746, 917 N.Y.S.2d 628, 942 N.E.2d 1053 ), they lack merit. We reject defendant's contention that the cour......
-
People v. Wolf
...voluntary or intelligent. Although defendant's contention survives her valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Sparcino, 78 A.D.3d 1508, 1509, 911 N.Y.S.2d 523, lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 746, 917 N.Y.S.2d 628, 942 N.E.2d 1053), it is without merit. “Permission to withdraw a guilty pl......
-
People v. Crosby
...a credibility determination ..., and it did not abuse its discretion in discrediting th[at] claim[ ]" ( People v. Sparcino , 78 A.D.3d 1508, 1509, 911 N.Y.S.2d 523 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 746, 917 N.Y.S.2d 628, 942 N.E.2d 1053 [2011] ; see People v. Zimmerman , 100 A.D.3d 1360......
-
People v. Jenkins
...People v. Hobby, 83 A.D.3d 1536, 1536, 921 N.Y.S.2d 580,lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 859, 932 N.Y.S.2d 24, 956 N.E.2d 805;People v. Sparcino, 78 A.D.3d 1508, 1509, 911 N.Y.S.2d 523,lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 746, 917 N.Y.S.2d 628, 942 N.E.2d 1053). Therefore, based on the record before us, we see no reason......