People v. Oquendo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Oquendo

17 A.D.3d 701, 792 N.Y.S.2d 918

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

DecidedApril 25, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 701 (People v. Oquendo) 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. Oquendo, 17 A.D.3d 701, 792 N.Y.S.2d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered August 8, 2002, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s pro se motion to vacate his plea of guilty, without a hearing. The defendant’s conclusory allegations that he was innocent and that he was coerced by the codefendant and the codefendant’s family were belied by the plea proceedings and were insufficient to warrant vacatur of the plea (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]; People v Potter, 294 AD2d 603, 604 [2002]; People v Dunbar, 260 AD2d 644 [1999]; People v Barnett, 258 AD2d 526 [1999]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, 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, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered August 8, 2002, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s pro se motion to vacate his plea of guilty, without a hearing. The defendant’s conclusory allegations that he was innocent and that he was coerced by the codefendant and the codefendant’s family were belied by the plea proceedings and were insufficient to warrant vacatur of the plea (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]; People v Potter, 294 AD2d 603, 604 [2002]; People v Dunbar, 260 AD2d 644 [1999]; People v Barnett, 258 AD2d 526 [1999]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 701, 792 N.Y.S.2d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oquendo-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack