People v. De Los Santos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. De Los Santos

309 A.D.2d 664, 766 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11155

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 664 (People v. De Los Santos) 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. De Los Santos, 309 A.D.2d 664, 766 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J., at plea; Gregory Carro, J., at sentence), rendered July 31, 2002, convicting defendant of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motions to withdraw his guilty plea, made to both the plea and sentencing courts, were properly denied without a hearing (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]). Defendant received a full opportunity to present his claims by written submissions, including those of his new attorney. The record establishes that defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and that he received effective assistance of counsel (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). The allegedly coercive conduct by defense counsel amounted to nothing more than counsel’s professional evaluation of the strength of the People’s case and his emphatic advice that a guilty plea involving a sentence of probation was in defendant’s best interest (see People v Joseph, 284 AD2d 197 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 940 [2001]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J., at plea; Gregory Carro, J., at sentence), rendered July 31, 2002, convicting defendant of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motions to withdraw his guilty plea, made to both the plea and sentencing courts, were properly denied without a hearing (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]). Defendant received a full opportunity to present his claims by written submissions, including those of his new attorney. The record establishes that defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and that he received effective assistance of counsel (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). The allegedly coercive conduct by defense counsel amounted to nothing more than counsel’s professional evaluation of the strength of the People’s case and his emphatic advice that a guilty plea involving a sentence of probation was in defendant’s best interest (see People v Joseph, 284 AD2d 197 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 940 [2001]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 664, 766 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-de-los-santos-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack