From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Risalek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 4, 1991
172 A.D.2d 870 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 4, 1991

Appeal from the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.).


Defendant, indicted for rape in the first degree, has been convicted upon his plea of guilty of attempted rape in the first degree for which he was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 5 to 15 years. Following his conviction defendant unsuccessfully moved to vacate the judgment on the grounds that it was procured by fraud and coercion and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. On this appeal defendant asserts that the plea allocution was inadequate and that his CPL article 440 application was improperly denied.

Defendant failed to raise an objection to the adequacy of the plea allocution before County Court and has, therefore, failed to preserve that issue for our review (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665). In any event, defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser crime than that with which he was charged and may not now challenge the factual basis for the plea (see, People v Pelchat, 62 N.Y.2d 97, 108; People v. Buitrago, 125 A.D.2d 322). Finally, it is clear that after defendant disclaimed memory of certain of the criminal events giving rise to the charge, County Court made more than sufficient inquiry to ensure that he was knowingly entering his plea (see, People v. Wedgewood, 106 A.D.2d 674).

Defendant's CPL article 440 application was properly denied without a hearing. His allegations concerning fraud and coercion are contradicted by the transcript of the minutes of the plea allocution which clearly demonstrate that he knowingly entered his plea. Defendant's allegations that his trial counsel failed to interview witnesses who would allegedly demonstrate the involuntariness of admissions made to the police at the station house were not supported by other evidence or affidavits and, under the circumstances of this case, there was no reasonable possibility that they were true (CPL 440.30 [d]). We find defendant's other contentions equally without merit.

Judgment and order affirmed. Casey, J.P., Weiss, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Risalek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 4, 1991
172 A.D.2d 870 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Risalek

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM J. RISALEK…

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

Date published: Apr 4, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 870 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

People v. Jackson

While appellate counsel and trial counsel surmise that it was County Court's statement which "coerced"…

People v. Hanley

We are not persuaded that these averments are sufficiently probative to have mandated a hearing on the motion…