People v. Caufield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Caufield

57 A.D.3d 796, 868 N.Y.2d 908

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 16, 2008·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, the defendant’s motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty. The defendant’s conclusory allegations that he was coerced to enter the plea agreements were directly belied by the record of the plea proceedings (see People v Owens, 43 AD3d 1185 [2007]; People v Morales, 17 AD3d 487 [2005]; People v Rangolan, 295 AD2d 543 [2002]; People v Fernandez, 291 AD2d 456 [2002]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Spolzino, J.R, Covello, Angiolillo and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, the defendant’s motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty. The defendant’s conclusory allegations that he was coerced to enter the plea agreements were directly belied by the record of the plea proceedings (see People v Owens, 43 AD3d 1185 [2007]; People v Morales, 17 AD3d 487 [2005]; People v Rangolan, 295 AD2d 543 [2002]; People v Fernandez, 291 AD2d 456 [2002]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Spolzino, J.R, Covello, Angiolillo and Chambers, JJ., concur.

People v. Caufield, 57 A.D.3d 796, 868 N.Y.2d 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

57 A.D.3d 796 (People v. Caufield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related