People v. Batts

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Kilgore

    218 A.D.3d 1054 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 11 times

    Defendant also claims that he felt coerced to plead guilty because he was facing the possibility of persistent felony offender status if convicted after trial. Defendant, however, failed to preserve this argument by seeking to withdraw his plea on this basis (see People v Laurange, 215 A.D.3d 1169, 1170 [3d Dept 2023]). In any event, we reject this contention, as the pressure to which defendant was purportedly subjected was no different than "the type of situational coercion faced by many defendants who are [considering whether to plead guilty]" (People v Graham, 214 A.D.3d 1256, 1257 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see also People v Rivera, 290 A.D.2d 730, 731 [3d Dept 2002]; People v Batts, 179 A.D.2d 937, 937-938 [3d Dept 1992]). Finally, defendant asserts that based upon his age, willingness to participate in substance abuse treatment, desire to change his behavior in the future and acceptance of responsibility for the crimes committed, the sentences imposed were harsh and excessive.

  2. People v. Rivera

    290 A.D.2d 730 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 3 times

    We find no merit in defendant's claim regarding the voluntariness of his plea. The record demonstrates that defendant was advised of the consequences of his plea, including the rights he would be waiving, and that his plea was knowing and voluntary (see,People v. Lee, 272 A.D.2d 785, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 867; People v. Toledo, 243 A.D.2d 925). Contrary to defendant's claim, the record reveals that defense counsel accurately informed him of the possible sentence he could receive as a persistent felon if convicted after trial, information which did not convert an otherwise voluntary plea into one based on coercion (see, People v. Batts, 179 A.D.2d 937). Nor does the fact that defendant had to accept or reject the plea offer in a short time amount to coercion (see, People v. Faison, 270 A.D.2d 717; People v. Lesame, 239 A.D.2d 801, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 941). We do, however, find that there is possible merit to defendant's claim of untimely prosecution which was rejected summarily by County Court. The record reflects that the date of the offense was September 6, 1999. Defendant was not indicted until a Grand Jury was impaneled in September 2000 and returned an indictment which was filed November 13, 2000 and on which defendant was arraigned January 2, 2001. His letter, although it was inartfully drawn, coupled with his claim of lack of due process at the time of sentencing, were sufficient to raise a claim concerning the violation of his constitutional right to due process, an issue which is unaffected even by a waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v. McCleary, 271 A.D.2d 811, 812). Under these circumstances, we must withhold d

  3. People v. Walker

    228 A.D.2d 798 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 6 times

    Defendant had an extensive prior criminal involvement and was not a stranger to the criminal justice system. The record reveals that defendant freely, knowingly and intelligently entered his plea of guilty to a negotiated plea on the advice of his attorney rather than proceed to trial ( see, People v. Batts, 179 A.D.2d 937; Peoplev Minor, 143 A.D.2d 146, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 1048; People v Lopez, 126 A.D.2d 749). The record indicates that County Court merely informed defendant of the possible exposure he faced depending on whether the jury found him guilty of some or all of the crimes charged. Further, County Court then gave defendant the opportunity to confer further with his defense counsel.

  4. People v. Dover

    227 A.D.2d 804 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 20 times

    , then a hearing must be ordered ( People v. Simmons, 182 A.D.2d 1018, 1019; see, People v Armlin, 37 N.Y.2d 167, 171). Otherwise, a "presumption of sanity" prevails ( People v. Gelikkaya, 84 N.Y.2d 456, 459) which cannot be rebutted by a mere showing that the defendant has a history of mental illness ( see, supra; People v. Gensler, 72 N.Y.2d 239, 244, cert denied 488 U.S. 932). There is no indication in the record that defendant was mentally incompetent at the time he entered his guilty plea. During the colloquy between defendant and County Court, defendant capably answered all of the questions put to him, stating that he had consulted with his attorney, that he was not under the influence of alcohol or medication, that he knew he was in County Court entering a guilty plea pursuant to a plea bargain and that he was doing so "freely and voluntarily". Defendant's answers were in all respects appropriate, showing no indication of mental impairment requiring a competency hearing ( see, People v. Batts, 179 A.D.2d 937, 938). Finally, we find that the sentence imposed pursuant to the plea bargain was appropriate under the circumstances presented here ( see, People v. Zimmer, 184 A.D.2d 972).

  5. People v. Cipriani

    201 A.D.2d 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

    As a result of a plea bargain, defendant was allowed to plead guilty to two counts of burglary in the third degree in full satisfaction of 18 burglaries which he admitted committing in Schenectady County, with the understanding that he would receive the sentences ultimately imposed. A review of the minutes of the plea allocution indicates that County Court made sufficient inquiry of defendant, who, aided by competent counsel, fully comprehended the nature of the proceedings and knowingly entered his plea (see, People v. Batts, 179 A.D.2d 937). We find defendant's argument that the consecutive prison sentences of 2 to 6 years he received were harsh and excessive to be without merit, particularly inasmuch as the sentences were considerably less than the harshest allowed by law (see, People v. Negron, 193 A.D.2d 976, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 757). Accordingly, we affirm.

  6. People v. Wedekind

    200 A.D.2d 891 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)   Cited 2 times

    the conflicting testimony on defendant's claim that he requested a lawyer during his interrogation, inasmuch as the court's determination that defendant did not make such a request is supported by the record (see, People v. Walker, 191 A.D.2d 603, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1021). Defendant's further argument that his 6th Amendment right to counsel was violated when the police continued to question him after learning he had a prior criminal charge pending against him is unavailing because the crime here was unrelated to the previously charged crime (see, People v Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331, 349-350). Defendant's claim that he was illegally detained has not been preserved for our review as it was not raised at the Huntley hearing (see, People v. Harrell, 59 N.Y.2d 620, 621). Lastly, we find that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea because defendant did not present any evidence or claim of innocence, fraud or mistake in inducing the plea (see, People v. Batts, 179 A.D.2d 937; People v. Cance, 155 A.D.2d 764, 764-765). Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.