From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Martuzas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 2, 1996
224 A.D.2d 928 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 2, 1996

Appeal from the Jefferson County Court, Clary, J.

Present — Green, J.P., Lawton, Fallon, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not err in denying the motion of defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty. The record supports the conclusions that defendant understood the terms of the plea agreement and that the plea was entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily (see, People v Ayers [appeal No. 1], 192 A.D.2d 1134, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1069; People v. Bowden, 186 A.D.2d 362).

The court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request that the court recuse itself (see, People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 405-406). Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14 or a showing that the alleged bias affected the result, the issue of recusal is a matter left to the conscience of the court (see, People v. Moreno, supra, at 405, 407; People v. Alnutt, 172 A.D.2d 1061, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1073; People v. Kinsman, 144 A.D.2d 772, 774, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 1017).

The record does not support the argument that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel, an experienced trial attorney, made an omnibus motion and engaged in extensive negotiations on defendant's behalf, obtaining a favorable plea bargain that eliminated the possibility of consecutive sentences. Defendant's assertion that counsel was unwilling to proceed to trial is belied by the fact that jury selection was underway when defendant indicated his desire to enter a guilty plea.

The court did not err in denying defendant's motion for substitution of counsel, made on the first day of trial, as defendant demonstrated neither a compelling reason for the substitution nor that the substitution was not simply a dilatory tactic (see, People v. Rivera, 201 A.D.2d 385, 386, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 914; People v. Michalek, 195 A.D.2d 1007, 1008, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 807).

The sentence of 5 to 15 years' incarceration is neither unduly harsh nor severe, and we decline to exercise our power to modify the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [b]).


Summaries of

People v. Martuzas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 2, 1996
224 A.D.2d 928 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Martuzas

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICHARD MARTUZAS…

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

Date published: Feb 2, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 928 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 596

Citing Cases

People v. Reczko [4th Dept 1999

Defendant contends that he was deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. We…

People v. Reczko

Defendant contends that he was deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. We…