People v. DeMaio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. DeMaio

13 A.D.3d 72, 785 N.Y.S.2d 329, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14729

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

DecidedDecember 2, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 72 (People v. DeMaio) 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. DeMaio, 13 A.D.3d 72, 785 N.Y.S.2d 329, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J., at plea and withdrawal motion; Laura A. Ward, J., at sentence), rendered February 19, 2004, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale 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 plea was entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536 [1993]), and with effective assistance of counsel (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Defendant freely chose to enter into a very favorable plea. The court conducted a thorough plea allocution in which defendant admitted accessorial liability, and the claims he made in his plea withdrawal motion lacked merit and were contradicted by his allocution (see e.g. People v Fonseca, 284 AD2d 260 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 754 [2002]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Sweeny, 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., at plea and withdrawal motion; Laura A. Ward, J., at sentence), rendered February 19, 2004, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale 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 plea was entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536 [1993]), and with effective assistance of counsel (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Defendant freely chose to enter into a very favorable plea. The court conducted a thorough plea allocution in which defendant admitted accessorial liability, and the claims he made in his plea withdrawal motion lacked merit and were contradicted by his allocution (see e.g. People v Fonseca, 284 AD2d 260 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 754 [2002]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 72, 785 N.Y.S.2d 329, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-demaio-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack