From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Suazo

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 1, 2016
144 A.D.3d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

11-01-2016

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Luis A. SUAZO, Defendant–Appellant.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jan Hoth of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Patrick J. Hynes of counsel), for respondent.


Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jan Hoth of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Patrick J. Hynes of counsel), for respondent.

SWEENY, J.P., ACOSTA, ANDRIAS, MANZANET–DANIELS, WEBBER, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered April 30, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 12 ½ years, unanimously affirmed.

Although defendant asserts that the court improperly denied his motion to withdraw his plea, the record demonstrates that defendant never actually made such a motion, and that he abandoned his initial effort to do so. Although defendant indicated after the plea that he wanted a new lawyer, wanted to withdraw his plea and had “papers,” his request for new counsel was granted and at the next adjourned date, no mention was made of the motion or of the unfiled papers, notwithstanding that defendant proclaimed his innocence when asked if he had anything to say before sentence was imposed. In any event, to the extent defendant could be viewed as having made a plea withdrawal motion, his claim of innocence was conclusory and contradicted by his plea allocution (see People v. Moore, 132 A.D.3d 496, 17 N.Y.S.3d 426 [1st Dept.2015], lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 1003, 38 N.Y.S.3d 112, 59 N.E.3d 1224 [2016] ).

Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding the new attorney who represented him at sentencing involves matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record, which would require a CPL 440.10 motion. In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713–714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998] ; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 [1984] ).


Summaries of

People v. Suazo

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 1, 2016
144 A.D.3d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Suazo

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Luis A. SUAZO…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 1, 2016

Citations

144 A.D.3d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
144 A.D.3d 405
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 7116

Citing Cases

People v. Bradley

Nevertheless, we reject defendant's challenge to Supreme Court's refusal to suppress physical evidence (see…

People v. Bradley

Nevertheless, we reject defendant's challenge to Supreme Court's refusal to suppress physical evidence (see…