People v. Wager

16 Citing cases

  1. People v. Rivera

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 33546 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008)   Cited 1 times

    As this claim is supported only by the defendant's own self serving allegations and is not buttressed by any evidence, it does not provide this Court with a basis to find that the defendant's plea was involuntarily given. People v. Wager, 34 A.D.3d 505 (2d Dept.), lv. denied, 7 N.Y.3d 929 (2006); People v.D'Orio, 210 A.D.2d 424 (2d Dept. 1994), lv. denied, 85 N.Y.2d 972 (1995). Moreover, the defendant's claim is rejected as the transcript of the plea proceedings does not give "the slightest indication that defendant was uninformed, confused or incompetent" at the time the plea was taken.

  2. People v. Hayes

    161 A.D.3d 768 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 3 times

    fendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry ‘rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made’ " ( id. , quoting People v. Tinsley , 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 ). "Only in the rare instance will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing; often a limited interrogation by the court will suffice" ( People v. Tinsley , 35 N.Y.2d at 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 ). "[W]here a careful scrutiny of the motion to withdraw reveals that defendant's allegations fail to raise a legitimate question as to the voluntariness of the plea, the court may deny the motion without a hearing" ( People v. Brown , 14 N.Y.3d at 118, 897 N.Y.S.2d 674, 924 N.E.2d 782 ). Here, other than the defendant's conclusory assertions, there is no indication in the record that he lacked the capacity to understand the plea proceedings (seePeople v. Alexander , 97 N.Y.2d 482, 486, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802 ; People v. Wager , 34 A.D.3d 505, 505–506, 823 N.Y.S.2d 522 ; People v. Ramos , 21 A.D.3d 1125, 1125, 801 N.Y.S.2d 155, affd 7 N.Y.3d 737, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222 ). To the contrary, the record reflects that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered.

  3. People v. Kelly

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 4464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

    In any event, the plea allocution was sufficient inasmuch as it showed that the defendant understood the charges and made an intelligent decision to accept the plea (see People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295, 301; People v Rampersaud, 121 AD3d at 722; People v Davis, 114 AD3d at 698; People v Barrett, 105 AD3d at 863; People v Cubi, 104 AD3d at 1226). By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his contention regarding the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury (see People v Woods, 115 AD3d 997, 998; People v Devodier, 102 AD3d 884, 885; People v Skya, 43 AD3d 1190; People v Wager, 34 AD3d 505, 506). CHAMBERS, J.P., MILLER, HINDS-RADIX and LASALLE, JJ., concur.

  4. People v. Leverich

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 4432 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

    ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed. The defendant's contentions that the subject Superior Court Informations and the waivers of indictment were invalid because they did not contain certain oral amendments made by the County Court at the request of the defendant are forfeited by his pleas of guilty (see People v Levin, 57 NY2d 1008; People v Cohen, 52 NY2d 584; People v Brown, 47 AD3d 1162, 1163; People v Wager, 34 AD3d 505, 506). Additionally, the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty to burglary in the third degree under Superior Court Information No. 289/13 was defective because that Superior Court Information did not contain the offense charged in the felony complaint has been forfeited by his plea of guilty (see People v White, 38 AD3d 320). The defendant's contention that his pleas of guilty were not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because the allocutions to each count of burglary in the third degree were factually insufficient is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his pleas (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665; People v Sanchez, 122 AD3d 646). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's plea allocutions did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crimes, or call into question the voluntariness of his pleas (see People v Lop

  5. People v. Anderson

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 2841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

    The record of the plea proceedings demonstrates that the defendant's plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Yanez-Mejia, 133 AD3d 801; People v Statini, 117 AD3d 1089, 1090). The defendant's conclusory allegation that he was confused at the time of the plea is belied by his lucid and appropriate responses during the plea allocution (see People v Miranda, 67 AD3d 709, 710; People v Wager, 34 AD3d 505, 505; People v Matthews, 21 AD3d 499, 500). The defendant's challenge to the purported forfeiture agreement that he entered into with the office of the District Attorney is not reviewable on this appeal, since the record does not establish that the forfeiture agreement was made a part of the judgment of conviction (see Penal Law § 60.30; compare People v Abruzzese, 30 AD3d 219 with People v Detres-Perez, 127 AD3d 535, 535-536; see also People v Burgos, 129 AD3d 627, 627; People v Carmichael, 123 AD3d 1053, 1053).

  6. People v. Trimble

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 2386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

    The defendant's contention that defense counsel's ineffectiveness coerced him into pleading guilty is contradicted by his statements made during the plea proceeding that he was satisfied with counsel's representation, that he had not been forced into pleading guilty, and that he was entering the plea freely and voluntarily (see People v Bennett, 115 AD3d 973; People v Howard, 109 AD3d 487, 488). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of the contentions raised in his pro se supplemental brief (see People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 233; People v Woods, 115 AD3d 997, 998; People v Devodier, 102 AD3d 884, 885; People v Wright, 95 AD3d at 1047; People v Wager, 34 AD3d 505, 506). DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, AUSTIN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.

  7. People v. Towns

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

    The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256; People v Calvi, 89 NY2d 868, 871). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses appellate review of his challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution (see People v Nash, 38 AD3d 684; People v Wager, 34 AD3d 505; People v Mydosh, 27 AD3d 580), and the hearing court's suppression determination (see People v Jones, 131 AD3d 707; People v Sanchez, 122 AD3d 778). The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court should have granted his motion to withdraw his plea because it was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently survives the valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Innocent, 132 AD3d 696, 696; People v Hyland, 123 AD3d 736, 737; People v Lofton, 115 AD3d 989, 989).

  8. People v. Weaver

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7868 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

    DECISION ORDER Contrary to the defendant's contention, his plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made ( see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543), and the defendant's assertions to the contrary are belied by his lucid and appropriate responses during the plea proceedings ( see People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482, 486; People v Wager , 34 AD3d 505, 505-506). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty ( see CPL 220.60).

  9. People v. Benson

    85 A.D.3d 1194 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    We are satisfied that the prosecution met its burden here, and we perceive no basis upon which to disturb the County Court's determination ( see People v Paulin, 82 AD3d 910, 910). Contrary to the defendant's contention, his plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made ( see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543), and the defendant's assertions to the contrary are belied by his lucid and appropriate responses during the plea allocation ( see People v Wager, 34 AD3d 505, 505-506; People v Burgess, 81 AD3d 969, 970). Accordingly, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty ( see CPL 220.

  10. People v. Miranda

    67 A.D.3d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 21 times

    The defendant's conclusory allegation that he was confused at the time of the pleas is also belied by the record. The defendant stated that he understood the nature of the pleas, the rights he was waiving, and the crimes to which he was pleading guilty. The defendant's responses were lucid and appropriate, and he expressly stated that he understood all of the court's questions ( see People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482; People v First, 62 AD3d 1043, lv denied 12 NY3d 915; People v Wager, 34 AD3d 505; People v Matthews, 21 AD3d 499; People v Hansen, 269 AD2d 467; People v Polimeda, 198 AD2d 242). The defendant's remaining contention that the court should have sua sponte ordered the New York City Department of Probation to conduct a mental evaluation of him prior to sentencing, pursuant to CPL 390.30 (2), is without merit.