From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Kessler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 8, 2004
5 A.D.3d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2001-09996.

Decided March 8, 2004.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Weinberg, J.), rendered October 30, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Leon H. Tracy, Jericho, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith R. Sternberg and Andrea M. DiGregorio of counsel), for respondent.

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J. MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


DECISION ORDER.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. The County Court therefore properly denied his motion to withdraw the plea without a hearing, as his conclusory allegations of coercion and ineffective assistance of counsel were contradicted by the record and insufficient to warrant vacatur of the plea ( see People v. Curras, 1 A.D.3d 445; People v. Guerrero, 307 A.D.2d 935, lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 572; People v. Carter, 304 A.D.2d 771; People v. Bedi, 303 A.D.2d 687; People v. Solis, 302 A.D.2d 542).

There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the court erred in failing to conduct a mental competency hearing ( see People v. Pitt, 264 A.D.2d 786; People v. Totman, 269 A.D.2d 617) . "A review of the plea colloquy and sentencing minutes reveals nothing suggesting that [the] defendant was disoriented or unable to understand the proceedings or work with his attorney * * * The mere existence of a notation in the presentence report that [the] defendant, some * * * years earlier, had been diagnosed as suffering from a mental disorder, does not, without more, trigger a duty to inquire further as to his competency" ( People v. Wheeler, 249 A.D.2d 774, 774-775; see also People v. Lyons, 306 A.D.2d 541). In addition, contrary to his contention, the defendant received effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). The defendant's attorney negotiated an advantageous plea agreement that substantially limited his exposure to imprisonment ( see People v. Pitt, supra at 787).

PRUDENTI, P.J., ALTMAN, LUCIANO and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Kessler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 8, 2004
5 A.D.3d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Kessler

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. LEON KESSLER, appellant

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

Date published: Mar 8, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
772 N.Y.S.2d 582

Citing Cases

People v. Sloane

60; People v. Raymond, 3 AD3d 587; People v. Scott, 2 AD3d 884). The defendant's plea was knowingly,…

People v. Rodriguez

To the extent that the defendant's claim is reviewable on direct appeal, the record reveals that the attorney…