From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

PEOPLE, v. SOSA

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 9, 1999
258 A.D.2d 312 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

February 9, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Alderberg, J.).


Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea was properly denied after defendant was afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard. In light of defendant's unsubstantiated claims of innocence, the sentencing court's inquiry was sufficient (see, People v. Mims, 216 A.D.2d 104, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 783). Further, as the record clearly indicates no basis for allowing withdrawal of the plea, defense counsel's decision riot to join in defendant's pro se motion did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Kelly, 232 A.D.2d 314), nor was appointment of new counsel required by defense counsel's refusal to adopt defendant's motion (People v. Simpson, 238 A.D.2d 193). A fair reading of the record fails to support defendant's claim that his counsel took a position adverse to defendant on the plea withdrawal motion.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

PEOPLE, v. SOSA

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 9, 1999
258 A.D.2d 312 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

PEOPLE, v. SOSA

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PEDRO SOSA, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 9, 1999

Citations

258 A.D.2d 312 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
685 N.Y.S.2d 658

Citing Cases

People v. Taylor

The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel simply because his attorney failed to make a…

People v. Rowe

In denying the application, the court properly relied on its recollection of the plea proceedings. There was…