From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. McCarthy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 7, 1992
186 A.D.2d 1067 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

October 7, 1992

Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.

Present — Boomer, J.P., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The record does not support defendant's contention that County Court coerced him to abandon his request to vacate his guilty plea. We reject the further contention raised for the first time on appeal that defendant's waiver of indictment was invalid because he was not properly held for Grand Jury action (see, CPL 180.30; 195.10 [1] [a]; People v Holmes, 175 A.D.2d 650, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1012). Where, as here, the record of the plea proceedings indicates that the court was satisfied with the sufficiency of the waiver and that it executed an order to that effect (see, CPL 195.30), we may presume that the matter was properly before it (see, People v Washington, 138 A.D.2d 857, 858; see also, People v Hart, 171 A.D.2d 755, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 967). We find that the representation afforded defendant was meaningful (see, People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).


Summaries of

People v. McCarthy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 7, 1992
186 A.D.2d 1067 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. McCarthy

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CARL McCARTHY…

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

Date published: Oct 7, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 1067 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

People v. Windley

Initially, we reject defendant's contention that the superior court information was defective because he was…

People v. Planty

Defendant then agreed to waive preliminary hearings, to waive indictment, and to be prosecuted by superior…