People v. Murdock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Murdock

27 A.D.3d 1170, 810 N.Y.S.2d 692

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 1170 (People v. Murdock) 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. Murdock, 27 A.D.3d 1170, 810 N.Y.S.2d 692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson County Court (Kim H. Martusewicz, J.), rendered February 28, 2005. The judgment [1171]*1171convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree.

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

Memorandum: County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the motion of defendant to withdraw his Alford plea inasmuch as defendant was afforded “a reasonable opportunity to advance his contentions in support of the motion” (People v Peters, 302 AD2d 869, 870 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 541 [2003]). In any event, a defendant “ ‘is not entitled to withdraw his . . . plea merely because he discovers that he misapprehended the quality of the [People’s] case’ ” (People v Cantu, 202 AD2d 1033, 1033 [1994]; see People v Nichols, 302 AD2d 954 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 657 [2003]; People v Nicodemus, 227 AD2d 976 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1023 [1996]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Kehoe, Smith and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson County Court (Kim H. Martusewicz, J.), rendered February 28, 2005. The judgment [1171]*1171convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree.

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

Memorandum: County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the motion of defendant to withdraw his Alford plea inasmuch as defendant was afforded “a reasonable opportunity to advance his contentions in support of the motion” (People v Peters, 302 AD2d 869, 870 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 541 [2003]). In any event, a defendant “ ‘is not entitled to withdraw his . . . plea merely because he discovers that he misapprehended the quality of the [People’s] case’ ” (People v Cantu, 202 AD2d 1033, 1033 [1994]; see People v Nichols, 302 AD2d 954 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 657 [2003]; People v Nicodemus, 227 AD2d 976 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1023 [1996]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Kehoe, Smith and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 1170, 810 N.Y.S.2d 692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-murdock-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack