People v. Schrecengost

8 Citing cases

  1. People v. Price

    195 A.D.3d 1570 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Defendant asserts in particular that his plea was entered under duress because the plea bargain was linked to that offered to his brother, thereby making it difficult to independently decide whether to accept the plea, and because he was pressured into accepting that bargain by his former attorney. It is well established that, "so long as the plea agreement is voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made, the fact that it is linked to the prosecutor's acceptance of a plea bargain favorable to a third person does not, by itself, make [a] defendant's plea illegal" ( People v. Fiumefreddo , 82 N.Y.2d 536, 544, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 [1993] ). "[W]hile a connected plea entailing benefit to a third person can place pressure on a defendant, the ‘inclusion of a third-party benefit in a plea bargain is simply one factor for a [trial] court to weigh in making the overall determination whether the plea is voluntarily entered’ " ( id. at 545, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 ; seePeople v. Schrecengost , 273 A.D.2d 937, 938, 710 N.Y.S.2d 226 [4th Dept. 2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 938, 721 N.Y.S.2d 614, 744 N.E.2d 150 [2000] ). Here, the hearing testimony of the former attorneys for defendant and his brother belies defendant's claim that he was coerced and had insufficient time to discuss the linked plea bargain during a meeting prior to the plea proceeding, and we see no basis to disturb the court's determination to credit the testimony of the former attorneys over that of defendant (seePeople v. Henderson , 169 A.D.3d 1521, 1522, 93 N.Y.S.3d 785 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 977, 101 N.Y.S.3d 252, 124 N.E.3d 741 [2019] ; People v. Stephens , 6 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 775 N.Y.S.2d 684 [4th Dept. 2004], lv denied 3 N.Y.3d 663, 782 N.Y.S.2d 705, 816 N.E.2d 578 [2004], reconsideration denied 3 N.Y.3d 682, 784 N.Y.S.2d 20, 817 N.E.2d 838 [2004] ; see generallyPeople v. Santos , 244 A.D.2d 897, 897, 665 N.Y.S.2d 208 [4th Dept. 1997] ).

  2. People v. Price

    194 A.D.3d 1382 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    Defendant asserts in particular that his plea was coerced because the availability of the plea bargain for his brother was linked to defendant's acceptance of the plea, and because he was pressured into accepting that bargain by his former attorney. It is well established that, "so long as the plea agreement is voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made, the fact that it is linked to the prosecutor's acceptance of a plea bargain favorable to a third person does not, by itself, make [a] defendant's plea illegal" ( People v. Fiumefreddo , 82 N.Y.2d 536, 544, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 [1993] ). "[W]hile a connected plea entailing benefit to a third person can place pressure on a defendant, the ‘inclusion of a third-party benefit in a plea bargain is simply one factor for a [trial] court to weigh in making the overall determination whether the plea is voluntarily entered’ " ( id. at 545, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 ; seePeople v. Schrecengost , 273 A.D.2d 937, 938, 710 N.Y.S.2d 226 [4th Dept. 2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 938, 721 N.Y.S.2d 614, 744 N.E.2d 150 [2000] ). Here, defendant's claim that he acquiesced to the plea only so that the bargain would be available to his brother is undermined by the hearing testimony of his brother.

  3. People v. Price

    No. 2021-03964 (N.Y. App. Div. Jun. 17, 2021)

    It is well established that, "so long as the plea agreement is voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made, the fact that it is linked to the prosecutor's acceptance of a plea bargain favorable to a third person does not, by itself, make [a] defendant's plea illegal" (People v Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 544 [1993]). "[W]hile a connected plea entailing benefit to a third person can place pressure on a defendant, the 'inclusion of a third-party benefit in a plea bargain is simply one factor for a [trial] court to weigh in making the overall determination whether the plea is voluntarily entered'" (id. at 545; see People v Schrecengost, 273 A.D.2d 937, 938 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 938 [2000]). Here, the hearing testimony of the former attorneys for defendant and his brother belies defendant's claim that he was coerced and had insufficient time to discuss the linked plea bargain during a meeting prior to the plea proceeding, and we see no basis to disturb the court's determination to credit the testimony of the former attorneys over that of defendant (see People v Henderson, 169 A.D.3d 1521, 1522 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 977 [2019]; People v Stephens, 6 A.D.3d 1123, 1124 [4th Dept 2004], lv denied 3 N.Y.3d 663 [2004], reconsideration denied 3 N.Y.3d 682 [2004]; see generally People v Santos, 244 A.D.2d 897, 897 [4th Dept 1997]).

  4. People v. Price

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 3964 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

    It is well established that, "so long as the plea agreement is voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made, the fact that it is linked to the prosecutor's acceptance of a plea bargain favorable to a third person does not, by itself, make [a] defendant's plea illegal" (People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 544 [1993]). "[W]hile a connected plea entailing benefit to a third person can place pressure on a defendant, the 'inclusion of a third-party benefit in a plea bargain is simply one factor for a [trial] court to weigh in making the overall determination whether the plea is voluntarily entered' " (id. at 545; see People v Schrecengost, 273 AD2d 937, 938 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 938 [2000]). Here, the hearing testimony of the former attorneys for defendant and his brother belies defendant's claim that he was coerced and had insufficient time to discuss the linked plea bargain during a meeting prior to the plea proceeding, and we see no basis to disturb the court's determination to credit the testimony of the former attorneys over that of defendant (see People v Henderson, 169 AD3d 1521, 1522 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 977 [2019]; People v Stephens, 6 AD3d 1123, 1124 [4th Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 663 [2004], reconsideration denied 3 NY3d 682 [2004]; see generally People v Santos, 244 AD2d 897, 897 [4th Dept 1997]).

  5. People v. Price

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 2907 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

    It is well established that, "so long as the plea agreement is voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made, the fact that it is linked to the prosecutor's acceptance of a plea bargain favorable to a third person does not, by itself, make [a] defendant's plea illegal" (People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 544 [1993]). "[W]hile a connected plea entailing benefit to a third person can place pressure on a defendant, the 'inclusion of a third-party benefit in a plea bargain is simply one factor for a [trial] court to weigh in making the overall determination whether the plea is voluntarily entered' " (id. at 545; see People v Schrecengost, 273 AD2d 937, 938 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 938 [2000]). Here, defendant's claim that he acquiesced to the plea only so that the bargain would be available to his brother is undermined by the hearing testimony of his brother.

  6. People v. Roland

    133 A.D.3d 1240 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

    15 4 ), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. We need not address that contention inasmuch as the waiver would not foreclose his remaining contentions, i.e., that the plea was involuntary (see People v. Schrecengost, 273 A.D.2d 937, 937, 710 N.Y.S.2d 226, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 938, 721 N.Y.S.2d 614, 744 N.E.2d 150), and that the sentence is illegal (see People v. Stachnik, 101 A.D.3d 1590, 1592, 956 N.Y.S.2d 777, lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 1104, 965 N.Y.S.2d 800, 988 N.E.2d 538). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his plea was rendered involuntary by the statement of County Court, “without mention of the mitigating circumstances provision of Penal Law § 70.25(2–b), that his sentences were required to be consecutive” (People v. Zelaya, 253 A.D.2d 686, 686, 677 N.Y.S.2d 472, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 1041, 684 N.Y.S.2d 506, 707 N.E.2d 461). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.153[c] ).

  7. People v. Hart

    284 A.D.2d 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 3 times

    Defendant stated that she had sufficient opportunity to discuss the plea with her attorney. Finally, defendant admitted to her participation in the crime as outlined by the court ( see, People v. Schrecengost, 273 A.D.2d 937, 938, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 938).

  8. People v. Norman

    284 A.D.2d 933 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 3 times

    Thus, contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry and that the plea was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered ( see, People v. Valenti, 264 A.D.2d 904, 905-906, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 926; People v. Murray, 255 A.D.2d 997, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 975). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw the plea ( see, CPL 220.60; People v. Schrecengost, 273 A.D.2d 937, 938, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 938; People v. Martin, 240 A.D.2d 5, 8, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 856).