People v. Darling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Darling

27 A.D.3d 1168, 811 N.Y.S.2d 537

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 1168 (People v. Darling) 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. Darling, 27 A.D.3d 1168, 811 N.Y.S.2d 537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Chautauqua County Court (Stephen W. Cass, J.), rendered December 6, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [12]), defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. We reject that contention (see generally People v Klein, 11 AD3d 959 [2004]). There is nothing in the record to indicate that the court was aware at the time of the plea that defendant had previously undergone psychiatric treatment, and "[t]here was not the slightest indication that defendant was uninformed, confused or incompetent” when she entered the plea (People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482, 486 [2002]; see Klein, 11 AD3d at 959). “Defendant’s belated and unsubstantiated assertion that the plea was the result of defendant’s failure to take prescribed medication is insufficient to support the motion” (People v Gonzales, 231 AD2d 939, 940 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 923 [1996]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Kehoe, Smith and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Chautauqua County Court (Stephen W. Cass, J.), rendered December 6, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [12]), defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. We reject that contention (see generally People v Klein, 11 AD3d 959 [2004]). There is nothing in the record to indicate that the court was aware at the time of the plea that defendant had previously undergone psychiatric treatment, and "[t]here was not the slightest indication that defendant was uninformed, confused or incompetent” when she entered the plea (People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482, 486 [2002]; see Klein, 11 AD3d at 959). “Defendant’s belated and unsubstantiated assertion that the plea was the result of defendant’s failure to take prescribed medication is insufficient to support the motion” (People v Gonzales, 231 AD2d 939, 940 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 923 [1996]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Kehoe, Smith and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 1168, 811 N.Y.S.2d 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-darling-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack