From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cummings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 24, 1993
194 A.D.2d 994 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

June 24, 1993

Appeal from the County Court of Albany County (Harris, J.).


We find defendant's argument that County Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to be without merit. Defendant's conclusory claim that medication he was taking at the time of the plea served to make his plea involuntary is belied by the record. The transcript of the plea reveals that defendant was lucid and rational; County Court questioned defendant concerning the effects of his medication and was assured by defendant that he was cognizant of the proceedings and was not impaired by the medication (see, People v. Seger, 171 A.D.2d 892, lv dismissed 78 N.Y.2d 1081; People v. Ostrander, 136 A.D.2d 760). Furthermore, defendant offered no evidence that he suffered from any side effects from the medication which impaired his cognitive ability in any way (see, People v. Gomez, 174 A.D.2d 949, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 827). County Court afforded defendant the opportunity to make a formal written motion, which defendant failed to do. Given that "[t]he nature and extent of the fact-finding procedures prerequisite to the disposition [of motions to withdraw a plea] rest largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made" (People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927), we cannot say that County Court's offer in this regard did not meet the required procedural standard. Defendant failed to avail himself of the opportunity to make a formal motion in which he could have set forth the particulars which he claimed necessitated withdrawal of his plea. He cannot now complain that he was not given an appropriate opportunity to state the basis for his withdrawal motion, and County Court was not obligated to conduct an evidentiary hearing (see, People v. Seger, supra; People v. Barnett, 136 A.D.2d 555, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 966).

Finally, given that County Court's recommendation as to parole is not binding on the Parole Board and not relevant until parole proceedings are commenced, defendant's allegation that County Court violated the terms of the plea agreement by recommending that he never be granted parole is premature and, in any event, defendant has not shown that County Court acted out of retaliation (see, People v. Cornielle, 176 A.D.2d 190, 191, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 855).

Weiss, P.J., Yesawich Jr., Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Cummings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 24, 1993
194 A.D.2d 994 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Cummings

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LLOYD CUMMINGS…

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

Date published: Jun 24, 1993

Citations

194 A.D.2d 994 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
599 N.Y.S.2d 661

Citing Cases

People v. Wilder

The record also reveals that defendant gave pertinent, appropriate and unequivocal responses to County…

People v. Van Luc

That contention lacks merit. The court's statement of its intent is not binding on the State Board of Parole…