People v. Earnshaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Earnshaw

262 A.D.2d 579, 691 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7008

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 21, 1999·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the [580] defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered March 11, 1997, convicting him of attempted sodomy in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the defendant’s voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal all aspects of this case encompassed his right to review of the denial of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to the police (see, People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his application to withdraw his plea of guilty, since the plea and sentencing minutes reveal that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry into, and properly rejected, his unsupported assertions of innocence, duress, and coercion (see, People v Toney, 215 AD2d 791; People v Billings, 208 AD2d 941).

The defendant’s contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that he was denied meaningful representation by counsel, is without merit (see, People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 186-187; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the [580] defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered March 11, 1997, convicting him of attempted sodomy in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the defendant’s voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal all aspects of this case encompassed his right to review of the denial of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to the police (see, People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his application to withdraw his plea of guilty, since the plea and sentencing minutes reveal that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry into, and properly rejected, his unsupported assertions of innocence, duress, and coercion (see, People v Toney, 215 AD2d 791; People v Billings, 208 AD2d 941).

The defendant’s contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that he was denied meaningful representation by counsel, is without merit (see, People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 186-187; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Altman, JJ., concur.

People v. Earnshaw, 262 A.D.2d 579, 691 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

262 A.D.2d 579 (People v. Earnshaw) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related