From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pernell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 19, 1993
189 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

January 19, 1993

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly refused to suppress his inculpatory statements to police detectives. The defendant's statements were made after he had been advised of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona ( 384 U.S. 436), and after he had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived those rights (see, People v. Crawford, 186 A.D.2d 144; People v. Kranz, 180 A.D.2d 760). The testimony adduced at the hearing demonstrated that the investigating detectives did not engage in coercive tactics, or in conduct so fundamentally unfair as to deny the defendant due process of law (see, People v. Myers, 172 A.D.2d 632; see also, People v. Whiten, 183 A.D.2d 865).

We further find that the County Court properly denied the defendant's pro se application to withdraw his guilty plea. The defendant pleaded guilty after a complete and detailed plea allocution, during which he expressed satisfaction with his attorney, and was fully apprised of the consequences of his plea of guilty (see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9). In the absence of anything in the record to suggest that the defendant's plea was either improvident or baseless, his assertions that he was "upset" on the day of the plea allocution, and that he could not "do" the prison time he faced under the terms of the plea agreement, were insufficient to warrant withdrawal of his plea (see, People v. Bourdonnay, 160 A.D.2d 1014). Further, under the circumstances of this case, that the defense counsel allowed the defendant to proceed pro se on his application to withdraw his guilty plea did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Rodriguez, 181 A.D.2d 643; People v. Burgos, 177 A.D.2d 587; People v. Bourdonnay, supra; People v. Glasper, 151 A.D.2d 692). Further, contrary to the defendant's argument, the defense counsel did not adopt an adversary posture against him with respect to his pro se application to withdraw the plea (cf., People v. Santana, 156 A.D.2d 736; People v. Shadney, 81 A.D.2d 842). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Pernell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 19, 1993
189 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Pernell

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BILLY PERNELL…

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

Date published: Jan 19, 1993

Citations

189 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
592 N.Y.S.2d 466

Citing Cases

People v. Robert

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk…

People v. Jones

Thus, counsel's statements had no effect upon the court's decision and did not deprive defendant of effective…