From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bullock

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 6, 2005
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 50483 (N.Y. App. Term 2005)

Opinion

2003850SCR.

Decided April 6, 2005.

Appeal by defendant from judgments of the District Court, Suffolk County (P. Filiberto, J.), rendered May 27, 2003, convicting him of resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30) and forcible touching (Penal Law § 130.52), and imposing sentences.

Judgments of conviction unanimously affirmed.

PRESENT: McCABE, P.J., COVELLO and TANENBAUM, JJ.


The determination of whether to permit the withdrawal of a guilty plea rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and absent a showing of abuse, the court's determination will not be disturbed ( see CPL 220.60; People v. Alexander, 97 NY2d 482; People v. Frederick, 45 NY2d 520; People v. Scott, 2 AD3d 884; People v. Hernandez, 291 AD2d 456, lv denied 98 NY2d 650). In the case at bar, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea without a hearing. A hearing is required only when the record presents a genuine question of fact as to the voluntariness of the plea ( People v. Lane, 1 AD3d 801, lv denied 2 NY3d 742). Moreover, a guilty plea may not be withdrawn absent some evidence or claim of innocence, fraud, or mistake in its inducement ( see People v. McDonnell, 302 AD2d 619, 620, lv denied 100 NY2d 540). Here, the minutes of the plea proceedings show that defendant entered a knowing and voluntary plea in which he expressly stated under oath that he was not coerced or threatened into pleading guilty, that his attorney explained all the consequences of his plea including the requirement that he register under the Sex Offender Registration Act, and that he was satisfied with his attorney's representation. In addition, the minutes show that the court, at great length, advised defendant of the consequences of registration. Said statements belie defendant's claim that he was coerced into pleading guilty and that the consequences of being designated a sex offender were not fully explained to him. In any event, the failure to advise a defendant that he would fall under the purview of the Sex Offender Registration Act by pleading guilty, does not undermine the voluntariness of his plea ( People v. Clark, 261 AD2d 97, lv denied 95 NY2d 833).


Summaries of

People v. Bullock

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 6, 2005
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 50483 (N.Y. App. Term 2005)
Case details for

People v. Bullock

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JASON BULLOCK…

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

Date published: Apr 6, 2005

Citations

2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 50483 (N.Y. App. Term 2005)