People v. Best

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Best

99 A.D.3d 493, 951 N.Y.2d 866

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 9, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.3d 493 (People v. Best) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Best, 99 A.D.3d 493, 951 N.Y.2d 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]). “[T]he nature and extent of the fact-finding procedures on such motions rest largely in the discretion of the court” (People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 544 [1993]). The record establishes the voluntariness of the plea. The court, which accorded defendant a suitable opportunity to be heard, had sufficient information upon which to reject defendant’s claim that medication affected his ability to understand the proceedings (see People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482 [2002]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Saxe, J.P, Sweeny, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]). “[T]he nature and extent of the fact-finding procedures on such motions rest largely in the discretion of the court” (People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 544 [1993]). The record establishes the voluntariness of the plea. The court, which accorded defendant a suitable opportunity to be heard, had sufficient information upon which to reject defendant’s claim that medication affected his ability to understand the proceedings (see People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482 [2002]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Saxe, J.P, Sweeny, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 493, 951 N.Y.2d 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-best-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack