People v. Tepley
| Decision Date | 17 April 2013 |
| Citation | 962 N.Y.S.2d 907,105 A.D.3d 977,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02597 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Sarah TEPLEY, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Tor Jacob Worsoe, Jr., Holtsville, N.Y., for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Crecca, J.), dated March 19, 2012, which denied her motion to withdraw her plea of guilty, and (2) a judgment of the same court rendered May 4, 2012, convicting her of sexual abuse in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The appeal from the order must be dismissed, as no appeal lies, as of right or by permission, from an order denying a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty ( see CPL 460.10, 460.15). However, the issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review on the appeal from the judgment.
The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court and generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion ( see CPL 220.60[3]; People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797;People v. Duncan, 78 A.D.3d 1193, 912 N.Y.S.2d 283). Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, there is no proof that her plea was involuntary or unintelligent ( see People v. Adelman, 36 A.D.3d 926, 927, 828 N.Y.S.2d 555). In particular, both the plea minutes and the court's recollection of the plea proceedings contradict the defendant's allegation that her alleged intoxication at the time of the plea affected her ability to understand the proceedings ( see People v. Lopez, 84 A.D.3d 578, 922 N.Y.S.2d 402). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to withdraw the plea.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that she was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel ( see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674;People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213;People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563, 565, 721 N.Y.S.2d 577, 744 N.E.2d 112;People v. Caruso, 88 A.D.3d 809, 930 N.Y.S.2d 668).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kilmer
...absent an improvident exercise of discretion" (People v. Duncan, 78 A.D.3d 1193, 1193, 912 N.Y.S.2d 283 ; see People v. Tepley, 105 A.D.3d 977, 977, 962 N.Y.S.2d 907 ). Here, the defendant sought to withdraw his plea of guilty on the grounds that it was not entered knowingly or voluntarily.......
-
People v. John
...the Supreme Court's recollection of the plea proceedings ( see People v. Zabriskie, 105 A.D.3d 1068, 964 N.Y.S.2d 425;People v. Tepley, 105 A.D.3d 977, 962 N.Y.S.2d 907;People v. Ramos, 77 A.D.3d 773, 774, 909 N.Y.S.2d 484;People v. Woodhouse, 65 A.D.3d 1267, 1267, 885 N.Y.S.2d 425;People v......
-
People v. Ward, 2013-02783
...disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion” (People v. Duncan, 78 A.D.3d 1193, 1193, 912 N.Y.S.2d 283 ; see People v. Tepley, 105 A.D.3d 977, 962 N.Y.S.2d 907 ). Here, to the extent that the defendant argues that he felt compelled to plead guilty, this argument is at odds with s......
- People v. Rojas