People v. Nin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nin

276 A.D.2d 350, 714 N.Y.S.2d 670, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10606

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 17, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered November 18, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 12V2 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, after sufficient inquiry wherein defendant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his contentions (see, People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520). The record establishes that defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleaded guilty after a thorough allocution, and that he was fully able to understand the [351] proceedings with the assistance of an interpreter. His conclusory assertions of misunderstanding, innocence, coercion and ineffective assistance are belied by the record and did not require a hearing or the appointment of new counsel. Counsel did not take a position adverse to that of defendant, and, in any event, it is clear that the court rejected defendant’s claims prior to directing an inquiry at defense counsel (see, People v Rodriguez, 189 AD2d 684, lv denied 81 NY2d 892).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered November 18, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 12V2 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, after sufficient inquiry wherein defendant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his contentions (see, People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520). The record establishes that defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleaded guilty after a thorough allocution, and that he was fully able to understand the [351] proceedings with the assistance of an interpreter. His conclusory assertions of misunderstanding, innocence, coercion and ineffective assistance are belied by the record and did not require a hearing or the appointment of new counsel. Counsel did not take a position adverse to that of defendant, and, in any event, it is clear that the court rejected defendant’s claims prior to directing an inquiry at defense counsel (see, People v Rodriguez, 189 AD2d 684, lv denied 81 NY2d 892).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

People v. Nin, 276 A.D.2d 350, 714 N.Y.S.2d 670, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10606 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

276 A.D.2d 350 (People v. Nin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related