From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Soto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 24, 1996
228 A.D.2d 707 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

June 24, 1996

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in denying his pro se motion to withdraw his plea of guilty based upon his claims of coercion and innocence is without merit. It is well settled that "[t]he determination of whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the trial court" ( People v. Sears, 204 A.D.2d 578, 579; People v. Lisbon, 187 A.D.2d 457, 458; People v. Lewis, 170 A.D.2d 538). The record of the thorough and meticulous plea allocution establishes that the defendant's plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered, and refutes the defendant's claims (see, People v. Sears, supra; People v. Lisbon, supra). Moreover, the trial court did not err in failing to conduct a hearing on the defendant's claims (see, People v Lisbon, supra).

Finally, because the sentence imposed was that which was promised to the defendant, his claim that the sentence was excessive is without merit ( see, People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Soto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 24, 1996
228 A.D.2d 707 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Soto

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSE SOTO, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 24, 1996

Citations

228 A.D.2d 707 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
644 N.Y.S.2d 970

Citing Cases

People v. Carthen

The disposition of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.…