People v. Potter

13 Citing cases

  1. People v. Hyland

    123 A.D.3d 736 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

    The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea since it was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made survives the valid waiver of his right to appeal ( see People v. Lofton, 115 A.D.3d 989, 989, 982 N.Y.S.2d 587; People v. Persaud, 109 A.D.3d 626, 626, 970 N.Y.S.2d 324; People v. Morrow, 48 A.D.3d 704, 705, 852 N.Y.S.2d 327; see also People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 280, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108). However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently pleaded guilty and, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his pro se motion to withdraw his plea ( see People v. Griffith, 78 A.D.3d 1194, 1195, 913 N.Y.S.2d 264; People v. Gully, 17 A.D.3d 382, 382, 792 N.Y.S.2d 199; People v. Telfair, 299 A.D.2d 429, 429, 749 N.Y.S.2d 436; People v. Potter, 294 A.D.2d 603, 604, 742 N.Y.S.2d 584).

  2. People v. Hyland

    123 A.D.3d 736 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

    The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea since it was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made survives the valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v. Lofton, 115 A.D.3d 989, 989, 982 N.Y.S.2d 587 ; People v. Persaud, 109 A.D.3d 626, 626, 970 N.Y.S.2d 324 ; People v. Morrow, 48 A.D.3d 704, 705, 852 N.Y.S.2d 327 ; see also People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 280, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108 ). However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently pleaded guilty and, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his pro se motion to withdraw his plea (see People v. Griffith, 78 A.D.3d 1194, 1195, 913 N.Y.S.2d 264 ; People v. Gully, 17 A.D.3d 382, 382, 792 N.Y.S.2d 199 ; People v. Telfair, 299 A.D.2d 429, 429, 749 N.Y.S.2d 436 ; People v. Potter, 294 A.D.2d 603, 604, 742 N.Y.S.2d 584 ).

  3. People v. Percer

    90 A.D.3d 789 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 5 times

    However, that right may be waived ( see People v. Parker, 57 N.Y.2d at 139, 454 N.Y.S.2d 967, 440 N.E.2d 1313), and a defendant may forfeit his right to be present when his conduct “unambiguously indicates a defiance of the processes of law and it disrupts the trial after all parties are assembled and ready to proceed” ( People v. Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436, 444, 492 N.Y.S.2d 577, 482 N.E.2d 56; see People v. Mitchell, 69 A.D.3d 761, 894 N.Y.S.2d 60; People v. Hendrix, 63 A.D.3d 958, 883 N.Y.S.2d 534). Considering the defendant's obstreperous and disruptive behavior during sentencing, he forfeited his statutory and constitutional rights to be present, and the sentencing court providently exercised its discretion in sentencing him in absentia ( see People v. Potter, 294 A.D.2d 603, 742 N.Y.S.2d 584; People v. Curtis, 286 A.D.2d 900, 731 N.Y.S.2d 828). RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.

  4. People v. Perez

    83 A.D.3d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

    Here, the record supports the Supreme Court's determination that the defendant's plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently ( see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d at 543; People v Harris, 74 AD3d at 839). The defendant's unsubstantiated and conclusory assertions of innocence, coercion, and ineffective assistance of counsel were contradicted by the record and, therefore, were insufficient to warrant withdrawal or a hearing ( see People v Griffith, 78 AD3d at 1195; People v Wiedmer, 71 AD3d at 1067; People v Potter, 294 AD2d 603, 604; People v D'Orio, 210 AD2d 424, 425; People v Grady, 110 AD2d 780, 780-781). "[T]he defendant's waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea" ( People v Gedin, 46 AD3d at 701; see People v Aguayo, 73 AD3d 938, 939; People v Taubenkraut, 48 AD3d 598).

  5. People v. Griffith

    78 A.D.3d 1194 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 23 times

    Instead, it is sufficient if the court affords the defendant an opportunity to present his arguments with respect to withdrawal ( see People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926; People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d at 543). Unsubstantiated and conclusory assertions of innocence and coercion that are contradicted by the record are insufficient to warrant withdrawal or a hearing ( see People v Wiedmer, 71 AD3d 1067; People v Potter, 294 AD2d 603; People v D'Orio, 210 AD2d 424; People v Grady, 110 AD2d 780). Here, the defendant's contention on appeal that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently made because his prior attorney failed to inform him or misinformed him of the deportation consequences of his plea of guilty is principally based on matter debtors the record and, thus, cannot be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v Wiedmer, 71 AD3d 1067; People v Alexander, 62 AD3d 719, 720; People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920; People v DeLuca, 45 AD3d 777).

  6. People v. Oquendo

    17 A.D.3d 701 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 2 times

    The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's pro se motion to vacate his plea of guilty, without a hearing. The defendant's conclusory allegations that he was innocent and that he was coerced by the codefendant and the codefendant's family were belied by the plea proceedings and were insufficient to warrant vacatur of the plea ( see People v. Frederick, 45 NY2d 520; People v. Potter, 294 AD2d 603, 604; People v. Dunbar, 260 AD2d 644; People v. Barnett, 258 AD2d 526).

  7. People v. Potter

    1 A.D.3d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

    November 24, 2003. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this court dated May 28, 2002 ( People v. Potter, 294 A.D.2d 603), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered April 24, 2001. Antonio Potter, Comstock, N.Y., appellant pro se.

  8. People v. Curras

    1 A.D.3d 445 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 16 times

    The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his challenge to the factual adequacy of his plea allocution ( see People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273; People v. DeWitt, 295 A.D.2d 937; People v. Santiago, 280 A.D.2d 688; People v. Bruno, 269 A.D.2d 540), as well as his claim that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30 ( see People v. DeWitt, supra; People v. Smith, 271 A.D.2d 703; People v. Love, 236 A.D.2d 488). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion to vacate his plea of guilty. The defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleaded guilty, and the record does not support his conclusory claims of coercion and ineffective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Carter, 304 A.D.2d 771; People v. Telfair, 299 A.D.2d 429; People v. Potter, 294 A.D.2d 603). The defendant's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

  9. People v. Guerrero

    307 A.D.2d 935 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 12 times

    At sentencing, the defense counsel submitted a pro se motion from the defendant seeking to withdraw his plea of guilty based upon conclusory assertions of innocence and a contention that he was pressured into pleading guilty by his attorney. His motion was properly denied without a hearing ( People v. Solis, 302 A.D.2d 542; see also People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726; People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520; People v. Cook, 295 A.D.2d 888; People v. Potter, 294 A.D.2d 603; People v. Caple, 279 A.D.2d 635). The defendant received the promised sentence of 12 years' imprisonment on each of the robbery counts, to run concurrently with each other.

  10. People v. Folks

    306 A.D.2d 355 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 6 times

    Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, after a hearing, his motion to withdraw his plea. The record of the plea allocution demonstrates that the defendant's pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (see People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9), and the evidence presented at the hearing failed to substantiate the defendant's claims, inter alia, that he was ill on the day he entered his pleas, that he was innocent, and that his attorney was ineffective (see People v. Johnson, 288 A.D.2d 491; see also People v. Telfair, 299 A.D.2d 429, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 620; People v. Potter, 294 A.D.2d 603). The defendant's further contention that his pleas should have been vacated because he was never advised that he would be subject to a period of post-release supervision is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Higgins, 304 A.D.2d 773 [2d Dept, Apr. 21, 2003]; People v. Larweth, 303 A.D.2d 901 [4th Dept, Mar. 21, 2003]; People v. Crump, 302 A.D.2d 901; People v. Velez, 301 A.D.2d 619), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.