People v. Marrero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marrero

242 A.D.2d 800, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8641

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 11, 1997·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chenango County (Dowd, J.), rendered November 8, 1996, convicting defendant [801]*801upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

We find no abuse of discretion in County Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea (see, CPL 220.60 [3]). Despite defendant’s contentions of coercion advanced in his motion to withdraw his plea, a review of the record as a whole clearly demonstrates that defendant entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea (see, People v Austin, 238 AD2d 631). The record reveals that County Court sufficiently inquired into defendant’s understanding of the plea and the consequences thereof (see, People v Alstin, 239 AD2d 790). Moreover, contrary to defendant’s contentions, the plea allocution establishes that defendant unequivocally waived his right to appeal as part of the plea bargain, regardless of his refusal to sign the waiver of appeal at sentencing (see, People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909; People v Smith, 210 AD2d 533, 535, lv denied 84 NY2d 1039).

Crew III, J. P., White, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chenango County (Dowd, J.), rendered November 8, 1996, convicting defendant [801]*801upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

We find no abuse of discretion in County Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea (see, CPL 220.60 [3]). Despite defendant’s contentions of coercion advanced in his motion to withdraw his plea, a review of the record as a whole clearly demonstrates that defendant entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea (see, People v Austin, 238 AD2d 631). The record reveals that County Court sufficiently inquired into defendant’s understanding of the plea and the consequences thereof (see, People v Alstin, 239 AD2d 790). Moreover, contrary to defendant’s contentions, the plea allocution establishes that defendant unequivocally waived his right to appeal as part of the plea bargain, regardless of his refusal to sign the waiver of appeal at sentencing (see, People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909; People v Smith, 210 AD2d 533, 535, lv denied 84 NY2d 1039).

Crew III, J. P., White, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

People v. Marrero, 242 A.D.2d 800, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

242 A.D.2d 800 (People v. Marrero) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related