From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Miles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 24, 2002
297 A.D.2d 564 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

1612-1612A

September 24, 2002.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered December 9, 1999, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 24, 2000, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, unanimously affirmed.

SUZANNE M. HERBERT, for respondent.

AARON P. MICHEAU, for defendant-appellant.

Before: Williams, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger, Friedman, JJ.


The record of defendant's plea allocution clearly establishes that he pleaded guilty knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily (see People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725). Defendant repudiated a letter he had sent to the court proclaiming his innocence and "unreservedly" admitted his guilt. We find no support for defendant's argument that he did not understand that he was forfeiting a possible agency defense, and in any event there was no factual basis for such a defense. Defendant's CPL 440.10 motion did not warrant a hearing since the court had sufficient facts before it to make an informed decision on the merits (see People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Miles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 24, 2002
297 A.D.2d 564 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Miles

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT MILES…

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

Date published: Sep 24, 2002

Citations

297 A.D.2d 564 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
747 N.Y.S.2d 157

Citing Cases

People v. Cleary

A hearing is not warranted where the motion court has sufficient facts before it to make an informed decision…