People v. Wilkov
| Decision Date | 21 October 2010 |
| Citation | 911 N.Y.S.2d 1,77 A.D.3d 512 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jennifer WILKOV, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Law Office of Jacob R. Evseroff, P.C., Brooklyn (Jacob R. Evseroff of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Deborah L. Morse of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered June 4, 2008, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of scheme to defraud in the first degree, violation of General Business Law § 352-c(5) and 22 counts of violation of General Business Law § 352-c(6), and sentencing her to an aggregate term of 6 months, with 5 years' probation and restitution in the amount of $41,336.14, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to withdraw her guilty plea ( see People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332 [1978] ). "[T]he nature and extent of the fact-finding procedures on such motions rest largely in the discretion of the court" ( People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 544, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 [1993] ). Contrary to defendant's argument, the court did not decide her motion until after it accorded her a full opportunity to be heard. The record establishes that the plea was voluntary, and that defendant's assertions of innocence, coercion and ineffective assistance of counsel were contradicted by the thorough plea colloquy.
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's alternative request for an adjournment for the purpose of retaining new counsel. There had been a lengthy period between the plea and sentencing proceedings in which this nonindigent defendant could have hired a new attorney if she wished, and, in any event, "no purpose would be served by such a substitution, given the patently meritless nature of defendant's plea withdrawal application" ( People v. Rivera, 34 A.D.3d 240, 241, 823 N.Y.S.2d 147 [2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 926, 834 N.Y.S.2d 517, 866 N.E.2d 463 [2007] ).
Defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate judgment is not before this Court because leave to appeal was denied ( see CPL 450.15[1], 460.15; People v. Rivera, 35 A.D.3d 304, 305, 828 N.Y.S.2d 307 [2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 949, 836 N.Y.S.2d 560, 868 N.E.2d 243 [2007] ). Defendant's request that the bench for this appeal entertain a leave...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Medina
...granted leave to appeal from the denial of that motion, those claims are not cognizable on this appeal (see People v. Wilkov, 77 A.D.3d 512, 513, 911 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept. 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 746, 917 N.Y.S.2d 628, 942 N.E.2d 1053 [2011] ). Although defendant describes his claims in ......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...provides that such an application can only be made to an individual justice, and can only be made once” ( People v. Wilkov, 77 A.D.3d 512, 513, 911 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept. 2010], lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 746, 917 N.Y.S.2d 628, 942 N.E.2d 1053 [2011] ). Since defendant's objection to expert testimo......
-
Cain v. Hunt, Case No. 07-CV-5919 (KMK)
...York Court of Appeals, a potentially fatal decision because New York law only entitles him to one direct appeal. See People v. Wilkov, 911 N.Y.S.2d 1,2 (App. Div. 2010) (explaining that an application for leave to appeal under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 460.15 can be made only once);......
-
People v. Medina
...should have granted leave to appeal from the denial of that motion, those claims are not cognizable on this appeal (see People v Wilkov, 77 A.D.3d 512, 513 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 746 [2011]). Although describes his claims in constitutional terms, they are nevertheless procedur......