People v. Garvin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Garvin

23 A.D.3d 155, 802 N.Y.S.2d 689

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 1, 2005·Published

Opinion

[156] Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered July 3, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly imposed an enhanced sentence after a thorough inquiry into whether defendant had violated a condition of his plea (see People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]). The evidence before the sentencing court clearly established defendant’s guilt of the misconduct at issue, and he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing (see People v Amaker, 299 AD2d 238 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 625 [2003]). The People presented compelling documentary evidence leading to an inescapable inference that defendant was the author of a threatening letter, and that he made phone calls that also violated the plea conditions (cf. People v Hamilton, 3 AD3d 405 [2004], mod on other grounds 4 NY3d 654 [2005]).

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate his plea (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]). The record establishes that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and that defendant’s claim of duress was groundless. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.

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

[156] Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered July 3, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly imposed an enhanced sentence after a thorough inquiry into whether defendant had violated a condition of his plea (see People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]). The evidence before the sentencing court clearly established defendant’s guilt of the misconduct at issue, and he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing (see People v Amaker, 299 AD2d 238 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 625 [2003]). The People presented compelling documentary evidence leading to an inescapable inference that defendant was the author of a threatening letter, and that he made phone calls that also violated the plea conditions (cf. People v Hamilton, 3 AD3d 405 [2004], mod on other grounds 4 NY3d 654 [2005]).

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate his plea (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]). The record establishes that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and that defendant’s claim of duress was groundless. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.

People v. Garvin, 23 A.D.3d 155, 802 N.Y.S.2d 689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

23 A.D.3d 155 (People v. Garvin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related