People v. Blim

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Blim

388 N.E.2d 346, 46 N.Y.2d 934, 415 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1857

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 388 N.E.2d 346 (People v. Blim) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Blim, 388 N.E.2d 346, 46 N.Y.2d 934, 415 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1857 (N.Y. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

This CPL 440.10 motion was brought on after defendant’s violation of his original sentence to probation had resulted in the substitution of a prison term. For the first time defendant then claimed that he was denied the right to counsel when he confessed and, thereafter, when he pleaded guilty (see People v Hannigan, 7 NY2d 317, 318). However, whatever merits his appeal in these regards could possess, they rest on a version of the facts rejected by the County Court after a hearing on the motion and then again by the Appellate Division. For instance, defendant’s on-the-record responses to the inquiries of the County Judge at the time of the plea included ones that he understood the consequences of the plea, that he had committed the acts which formed the basis for the crimes to which they were directed and that he was then being advised by competent counsel of his choice (People v Seaton, 19 NY2d 404, 406). And, since our own examination of the record reveals factual support for the findings below, they are beyond our power of review (People v Gruttola, 43 NY2d 116, 122).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

This CPL 440.10 motion was brought on after defendant’s violation of his original sentence to probation had resulted in the substitution of a prison term. For the first time defendant then claimed that he was denied the right to counsel when he confessed and, thereafter, when he pleaded guilty (see People v Hannigan, 7 NY2d 317, 318). However, whatever merits his appeal in these regards could possess, they rest on a version of the facts rejected by the County Court after a hearing on the motion and then again by the Appellate Division. For instance, defendant’s on-the-record responses to the inquiries of the County Judge at the time of the plea included ones that he understood the consequences of the plea, that he had committed the acts which formed the basis for the crimes to which they were directed and that he was then being advised by competent counsel of his choice (People v Seaton, 19 NY2d 404, 406). And, since our own examination of the record reveals factual support for the findings below, they are beyond our power of review (People v Gruttola, 43 NY2d 116, 122).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

388 N.E.2d 346, 46 N.Y.2d 934, 415 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-blim-ny-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack