People v. Howell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Howell

60 A.D.3d 1347, 875 N.Y.S.2d 371

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 60 A.D.3d 1347 (People v. Howell) 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. Howell, 60 A.D.3d 1347, 875 N.Y.S.2d 371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Cattaraugus County Court (Larry M. Himelein, J.), rendered January 14, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]), defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea at the time of sentencing. We reject that contention. According to defendant, he entered the guilty plea under the mistaken belief that the sentence imposed would run concurrently with a sentence to be imposed in a matter pending in federal court. It is well settled, however, that a court’s “ ‘refusal to permit withdrawal does not constitute an abuse of . . . discretion unless there is some evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in [the inducement of] the plea’ ” (People v Thomas, 17 AD3d 1047, 1047 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 770 [2005]; see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Pillich, 48 AD3d 1061 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 793 [2008]). There is no such evidence here. Rather, the record establishes that the terms of the sentencing commitment were “susceptible to but one interpretation” (People v Cataldo, 39 NY2d 578, 580 [1976]; see People v Ramos, 56 AD3d 1180 [2008]; People v Reyes, 167 AD2d 920, 921 [1990], lv denied 77 NY2d 842 [1991]), and the court adhered to that sentencing commitment (see Cataldo, 39 NY2d at 580).

The challenge by defendant to the factual sufficiency of the [1348]*1348plea allocution is unpreserved for our review (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), and it also is encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]; People v Jackson, 50 AD3d 1615 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 960 [2008]). In any event, his challenge is without merit. Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Cattaraugus County Court (Larry M. Himelein, J.), rendered January 14, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]), defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea at the time of sentencing. We reject that contention. According to defendant, he entered the guilty plea under the mistaken belief that the sentence imposed would run concurrently with a sentence to be imposed in a matter pending in federal court. It is well settled, however, that a court’s “ ‘refusal to permit withdrawal does not constitute an abuse of . . . discretion unless there is some evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in [the inducement of] the plea’ ” (People v Thomas, 17 AD3d 1047, 1047 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 770 [2005]; see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Pillich, 48 AD3d 1061 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 793 [2008]). There is no such evidence here. Rather, the record establishes that the terms of the sentencing commitment were “susceptible to but one interpretation” (People v Cataldo, 39 NY2d 578, 580 [1976]; see People v Ramos, 56 AD3d 1180 [2008]; People v Reyes, 167 AD2d 920, 921 [1990], lv denied 77 NY2d 842 [1991]), and the court adhered to that sentencing commitment (see Cataldo, 39 NY2d at 580).

The challenge by defendant to the factual sufficiency of the [1348]*1348plea allocution is unpreserved for our review (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), and it also is encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]; People v Jackson, 50 AD3d 1615 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 960 [2008]). In any event, his challenge is without merit. Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 1347, 875 N.Y.S.2d 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-howell-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack