People v. Tinsley
| Citation | 365 N.Y.S.2d 161,35 N.Y.2d 926,324 N.E.2d 544 |
| Parties | , 324 N.E.2d 544 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raymond TINSLEY, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kenneth VAUGHAN, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 20 December 1974 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Harry W. Turkel, New York City, for Raymond Tinsley, appellant.
A. Isadore Eibel, New York City, for Kenneth Vaughan, appellant.
Mario Merola, Dist. Atty. (Billie Manning, New York City, of counsel), for respondent in People v. Tinsley.
Richard H. Kuh, Dist. Atty. (Steven R. Kartagener, Asst. Dist. Atty. and Lewis R. Friedman, New York City, of counsel), for respondent in People v. Vaughan.
These are others in the list of cases in which appellate review is sought of the denial of a defendant's motion to withdraw a plea of guilty previously entered. The nature and extent of the fact-finding procedures prerequisite to the disposition of such motions rest largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made. Only in the rare instance will a defendant be entitled to an avidentiary hearing; often a limited interrogation by the court will suffice. The defendant should be afforded reasonable opportunity to present his contentions and the court should be enabled to make an informed determination in accordance with the principles laid down in People v. Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, 287 N.Y.S.2d 659, 234 N.E.2d 687 and associated cases. The determination in People v. McClain, 32 N.Y.2d 697, 343 N.Y.S.2d 601, 296 N.E.2d 454 was made in the light of such objectives.
In Tinsley no claim is made of deficiency in the inquiries at the time the plea was entered. Rather the assertion is that defendant was under such personal pressures at the time as to render his plea defective. Procedurally he claims that as a minimum he was entitled to a hearing before the denial of his motion. We conclude that the opportunity given defendant at the time the motion was made to withdraw his plea--to speak for himself and to have his counsel address the court on his behalf--met the required procedural standard. Further we find no substantive error in the denial of his motion. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division in Tinsley should be affirmed.
In Vaughan defendant, continuing to protest his innocence, asserted that he had earlier entered a plea of guilty because he had no witnesses to testify on his behalf; that he had been threatened by the court with a 15-year sentence if he did not plead; that he was dissatisfied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jones
...to the defendants and to the court that he had been told that the complainant, Rodriguez, was dead. In People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 162, 324 N.E.2d 544, it was held that the nature and extent of the fact-finding procedures prerequisite to the disposition of an ap......
-
People v. Amos
...on a[n] ... unsupported claim" ( People v. Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55, 57, 323 N.Y.S.2d 825, 272 N.E.2d 329 ; see People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 ; People v. Hollmond, 191 A.D.3d 120, 136–137, 135 N.Y.S.3d 449 ), or "when the minutes of the plea are unequivo......
-
People v. Hollman
...only in rare instances" ( People v. Brown, 14 N.Y.3d at 116, 897 N.Y.S.2d 674, 924 N.E.2d 782, quoting People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 ). Here, contrary to the conclusion of our dissenting colleague, the record demonstrates that the defendant's plea o......
-
Meachem v. Keane, 93 Civ. 3572 (SHS)(THK).
...in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made.'" Fluitt, 480 F.Supp. at 85 (quoting People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 162, 324 N.E.2d 544, 544 (1974)). In light of the circumstances giving rise to Petitioner's motion to withdraw his plea, the trial court's......
-
Theodore T. Jones, the defendant's champion: reviewing a sample of Judge Jones's criminal jurisprudence.
...839-40, 862 N.Y.S.2d at 446-47. (106) Id. at 33, 892 N.E.2d at 840, 862 N.Y.S.2d at 447. (107) Id. (108) Id. (quoting People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 324 N.E.2d 544, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161 (109) Id. at 33-34, 892 N.E.2d at 840, 862 N.Y.S.2d at 447. (110) Id. at 34, 892 N.E.2d at 840, 862 N......