People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 18 May 1992 |
| Citation | 584 N.Y.S.2d 107,183 A.D.2d 866 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Reginald WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Gregory P. Scialdone, White Plains, for appellant.
Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty., White Plains (Mary E. Costello and Maryanne Luciano, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and ROSENBLATT, MILLER and O'BRIEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), both rendered March 12, 1984, convicting him of rape in the first degree under Indictment No. 82-01140-01, and rape in the first degree under Indictment No. 82-01528-01, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
"The decision of whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered guilty plea rests within the sound discretion of the sentencing court" (People v. Howard, 138 A.D.2d 525, 526 N.Y.S.2d 132). The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The record reveals that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty in the presence of competent counsel after the court had advised him of the consequences of his plea. The defendant's protestations at sentencing that he was coerced into pleading guilty and did not understand the proceedings, are refuted by the record of the plea proceedings in which he expressly stated, while under oath, that he was not being coerced into pleading guilty, that he was pleading guilty freely and voluntarily, and that he was satisfied with the representation being given by his counsel (see, People v. Brownlee, 158 A.D.2d 610, 551 N.Y.S.2d 581). Thus, the defendant's protestations at sentencing did not provide a basis for withdrawing his pleas (see People v. Santana, 176 A.D.2d 360, 574 N.Y.S.2d 593; People v. Latimer, 176 A.D.2d 350, 574 N.Y.S.2d 586).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Velez
...did not comprehend the proceedings or that his plea was anything but knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see, e.g., People v. Williams, 183 A.D.2d 866, 584 N.Y.S.2d 107; People v. Pantojas, 182 A.D.2d 782, 582 N.Y.S.2d 777; People v. Ochoa, 179 A.D.2d 689, 579 N.Y.S.2d 114; People v. Docet......
-
People v. Viscomi, 4
...of defendant that he did not understand the consequences of his plea is refuted by the record of the plea proceedings (see, People v Williams, 183 A.D.2d 866, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 911). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J. - Murder, 2nd (Filed Sept. 28, 2001.) ...
-
People v. John
...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. Williams, 183 A.D.2d 866, 866, 584 N.Y.S.2d 107). Furthermore, the defendant was afforded an adequate opportunity to present his contentions ( see People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y......
-
People v. Mason
...upon his claims of coercion and innocence, which were made at the time of sentencing (see, CPL 220.60[3]; 380.30[3]; People v. Williams, 183 A.D.2d 866, 584 N.Y.S.2d 107; People v. Latimer, 176 A.D.2d 350, 351, 574 N.Y.S.2d 586; People v. Howard, 138 A.D.2d 525, 526 N.Y.S.2d 132). The defen......