From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Holmes

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 29, 2016
145 A.D.3d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

12-29-2016

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel HOLMES, Defendant–Appellant.

Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Robert S. Dean of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Ryan P. Mansell of counsel), for respondent.


Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Robert S. Dean of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Ryan P. Mansell of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph J. Dawson, J. at plea; Raymond L. Bruce, J. at sentencing), rendered October 17, 2013, convicting defendant of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as second felony offender, to a term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.The court was not obligated to appoint new counsel for defendant at sentencing in connection with his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, notwithstanding remarks by defense counsel that defendant contends were adverse to his claim that his plea was coerced. First, the remarks were made after the court had implicitly denied the motion to withdraw the plea, and could not have affected that ruling. Second, to the extent that counsel's remarks were relevant to defendant's motion, they did not give rise to a conflict of interest. When the conduct of counsel is challenged in the context of a motion to withdraw a plea, “defense counsel should be afforded the opportunity to explain his performance with respect to the plea, but may not take a position on the motion that is adverse to the defendant” (People v. Mitchell, 21 N.Y.3d 964, 970 N.Y.S.2d 919, 993 N.E.2d 405 [2013] [citation omitted] ). Here, counsel's brief, limited and innocuous comments recounting some of her efforts leading up to the plea did not amount to asserting that defendant's motion lacked merit (see People v. Washington, 25 N.Y.3d 1091, 1095, 13 N.Y.S.3d 343, 34 N.E.3d 853 [2015] ). The court properly denied the motion without assigning new counsel. Defendant received an opportunity to amplify his challenge to his plea, but declined to do so (see People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332 [1978] ).

MAZZARELLI, J.P., SWEENY, RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Holmes

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 29, 2016
145 A.D.3d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Holmes

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel HOLMES…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 29, 2016

Citations

145 A.D.3d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
42 N.Y.S.3d 811
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 8957

Citing Cases

People v. Walker

The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree for…