From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 1, 1990
159 A.D.2d 227 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

March 1, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, Lawrence Tonetti, J.


Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea (People v Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520). In support of such motion, defendant alleged only that he had been coerced and threatened to plead guilty by counsel and that he was experiencing fear from some unspecified source. That counsel made defendant aware of his sentencing exposure cannot be a basis for finding coercion. And, while the pressures of considering a plea may be stressful, they do not constitute duress or coercion (People v Parker, 85 A.D.2d 565).

Defendant's remaining arguments have not been preserved for review (People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636, 637), and we decline to reach them. In any event, if we were to consider these arguments in the interest of justice, we would find them to be without merit, in view of defendant's direct admission of pulling the trigger and express waiver of his right to a jury trial.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Asch, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 1, 1990
159 A.D.2d 227 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DEREK KELLY, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 1, 1990

Citations

159 A.D.2d 227 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
551 N.Y.S.2d 930

Citing Cases

People v. Rivera

Thus, we will not review the court's denial of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to…

People v. Patrick

At his plea allocution, defendant expressly admitted that he committed the crime charged. An expression of…