People v. Champagne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Champagne

72 A.D.3d 557, 898 N.Y.S.2d 837

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

DecidedApril 22, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 557 (People v. Champagne) 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. Champagne, 72 A.D.3d 557, 898 N.Y.S.2d 837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered February 4, 2009, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The record establishes that defendant’s favorable plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 542-544 [1993]). Defendant, who presented his claim of innocence through his written submission and declined to address the court, received a sufficient opportunity to advance his claim, and the record supports the court’s rejection, as unreliable, of the purportedly exculpatory evidence he presented (see e.g. People v Randall, 22 AD3d 261 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 852 [2006]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered February 4, 2009, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The record establishes that defendant’s favorable plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 542-544 [1993]). Defendant, who presented his claim of innocence through his written submission and declined to address the court, received a sufficient opportunity to advance his claim, and the record supports the court’s rejection, as unreliable, of the purportedly exculpatory evidence he presented (see e.g. People v Randall, 22 AD3d 261 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 852 [2006]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 557, 898 N.Y.S.2d 837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-champagne-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack