From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Holmes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 24, 2003
303 A.D.2d 690 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2001-01834

Submitted March 5, 2003.

March 24, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered February 22, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Andrea D. Pawliczek, Montgomery, N.Y., for appellant.

Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Catherine A. Walsh of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see CPL 220.60; People v. Dickerson, 163 A.D.2d 610). The defendant's claims of coercion and ineffectiveness of counsel, upon which the motion was based, are belied by the record (see People v. Charles, 256 A.D.2d 472).

The defendant has foreclosed appellate review of his claim that his statutory right to a speedy trial was violated (see CPL 30.30) by entering a plea of guilty (see People v. Prescott, 66 N.Y.2d 216, 219-220; People v. Kenrick, 233 A.D.2d 528).

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Holmes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 24, 2003
303 A.D.2d 690 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Holmes

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER HOLMES, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 24, 2003

Citations

303 A.D.2d 690 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 778

Citing Cases

People v. O'Connor

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant pleaded guilty, withdrew all pretrial motions that he…

People v. Heer

Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his pro se…