People v. Jaworowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jaworowski

201 A.D.2d 504, 609 N.Y.S.2d 792

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 7, 1994·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), rendered June 18, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

After entering a plea of guilty, the defendant made a written pro se motion to withdraw his plea. The court denied his motion without a hearing. Since the defendant was afforded a "reasonable opportunity to present his contentions”, and the court was able "to make an informed determination in accordance with the principles laid down in People v. Nixon (21 N Y 2d 338)”, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in failing to conduct a hearing (People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927; People v Black, 170 AD2d 383). Moreover, the defendant’s motion was without merit (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9; People v Black, supra).

The defendant also failed to make the necessary showing of good cause to warrant substitution of assigned counsel (see, People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12; People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199; People v Stubbs, 175 AD2d 187). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), rendered June 18, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

After entering a plea of guilty, the defendant made a written pro se motion to withdraw his plea. The court denied his motion without a hearing. Since the defendant was afforded a "reasonable opportunity to present his contentions”, and the court was able "to make an informed determination in accordance with the principles laid down in People v. Nixon (21 N Y 2d 338)”, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in failing to conduct a hearing (People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927; People v Black, 170 AD2d 383). Moreover, the defendant’s motion was without merit (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9; People v Black, supra).

The defendant also failed to make the necessary showing of good cause to warrant substitution of assigned counsel (see, People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12; People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199; People v Stubbs, 175 AD2d 187). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

People v. Jaworowski, 201 A.D.2d 504, 609 N.Y.S.2d 792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

201 A.D.2d 504 (People v. Jaworowski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related