People v. Hamm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hamm

17 A.D.3d 105, 792 N.Y.S.2d 75, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3451

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

DecidedApril 5, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 105 (People v. Hamm) 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. Hamm, 17 A.D.3d 105, 792 N.Y.S.2d 75, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered February 6, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

After a suitable inquiry, the court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]). The record establishes that defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and it fails to support his claim that he was incompetent to plead guilty because he had not received his antidepressant medication (see People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482 [2002]; People v Beals, 2 AD3d 329 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 761 [2004]). In the thorough plea allocution, defendant freely admitted his guilt, demonstrated his understanding of the terms and consequences of his plea, and specifically denied using any drugs or medication. In rejecting defendant’s claim, the court also relied on its own recollection of defendant’s lucidity at the time of the plea. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Andrias, Friedman and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered February 6, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

After a suitable inquiry, the court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]). The record establishes that defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and it fails to support his claim that he was incompetent to plead guilty because he had not received his antidepressant medication (see People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482 [2002]; People v Beals, 2 AD3d 329 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 761 [2004]). In the thorough plea allocution, defendant freely admitted his guilt, demonstrated his understanding of the terms and consequences of his plea, and specifically denied using any drugs or medication. In rejecting defendant’s claim, the court also relied on its own recollection of defendant’s lucidity at the time of the plea. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Andrias, Friedman and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 105, 792 N.Y.S.2d 75, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hamm-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack