People v. Best

99 A.D.3d 493, 951 N.Y.2d 866
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Best. Read the opinion of the Court — 120 A.D.3d 707

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

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

99 A.D.3d 493 (People v. Best) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Fiumefreddo
626 N.E.2d 646 (New York Court of Appeals, 1993)
People v. Alexander
769 N.E.2d 802 (New York Court of Appeals, 2002)
People v. Frederick
382 N.E.2d 1332 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)