People v. Bullard

33 A.D.3d 715, 821 N.Y.S.2d 912
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 10, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 33 A.D.3d 715 (People v. Bullard) 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. Bullard, 33 A.D.3d 715, 821 N.Y.S.2d 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J), rendered February 24, 2004, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

An application to withdraw a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the court (see People v Turner, 23 AD3d 503 [2005]). The defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily admitted his guilt in a thorough and complete allocution, during which he denied that he was threatened or induced by promises to plead guilty (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Telfair, 299 AD2d 429 [2002]; People v Ramsingh, 267 AD2d 406 [1999]). Moreover, the Supreme Court conducted a sufficient inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s application to withdraw his plea of guilty (see People v Fiumefreddo, supra at 543; People v Felix, 20 AD3d 433 [2005]; People v Dunlop, 228 AD2d 692 [1996]). The defense counsel was given every opportunity to state the grounds for the application to withdraw the plea, and the defendant was given permission to add whatever he wanted to say but declined to do so. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application to withdraw his plea of guilty.

The defendant’s contention raised in point two of his supplemental pro se brief is unpreserved for appellate review, and his remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.E, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Kosse
94 A.D.3d 908 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Wiedmer
71 A.D.3d 1067 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Hughes
62 A.D.3d 1026 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 A.D.3d 715, 821 N.Y.S.2d 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bullard-nyappdiv-2006.