From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 18, 1988
142 A.D.2d 683 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

July 18, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Prior to the date set for sentencing, the defendant filed a formal written motion to withdraw his guilty plea based upon his bare assertion that he was innocent of the charges and that his former attorney had coerced him into pleading guilty. At the time of sentencing, the court afforded the defendant a further opportunity to argue the motion; however, the defense counsel merely reiterated the same conclusory assertions as were contained in the motion papers. After indicating that it had reviewed the minutes of the plea allocution and the papers submitted on the defendant's motion, the court denied it.

The decision as to whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the sentencing court (see, People v. Melendez, 135 A.D.2d 660, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 1008). There exists no hard-and-fast rule which sets forth the nature and extent of the fact-finding procedures necessary to the disposition of motions to withdraw guilty pleas previously entered (People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927). Rather, the Judge hearing the motion "must exercise his discretion in affording defendant a reasonable opportunity to advance his claims from which an informed and prudent determination can be rendered" (People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 525).

In the instant case, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily made a complete and detailed plea allocution in the presence of competent counsel — with whom the defendant had expressed satisfaction at the time of the plea — after the court had fully apprised the defendant of the consequences of his plea (see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9). Inasmuch as the court had the defendant's motion papers before it and afforded the defendant ample opportunity to substantiate his assertions at sentencing, the court properly proceeded to impose sentence (see, People v Savio, 117 A.D.2d 633, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 1004; People v McClendon, 114 A.D.2d 425, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 921). Mollen, P.J., Lawrence, Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 18, 1988
142 A.D.2d 683 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY BROWN…

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

Date published: Jul 18, 1988

Citations

142 A.D.2d 683 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

People v. Willingham

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in…

People v. Williams

Upon our review of the record, we find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in…