People v. Pelchat

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pelchat

94 A.D.2d 805, 463 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18280

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

DecidedMay 31, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 94 A.D.2d 805 (People v. Pelchat) 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. Pelchat, 94 A.D.2d 805, 463 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jaspan, J.), rendered April 26; 1982, convicting him of criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Defendant, over the objection of the prosecutor, admitted his guilt and pleaded guilty to the charge in the indictment. Thereafter, defendant moved, inter alia, for leave to withdraw his plea, on the ground that his decision to plead guilty was influenced by the prosecutor’s failure to disclose Brady material. After a hearing, his motion was denied. We affirm. The law is well settled that “[a] defendant is not entitled to withdraw his plea merely because he discovers * * * that his calculus misapprehended the quality of the State’s case” (see Brady v United States, 397 US 742, 757). In this context, “no prosecutor is obliged to share his appraisal of the weaknesses of his own case (as opposed to specific exculpatory evidence) with defense counsel” (see People v Jones, 44 NY2d 76, 81). Defendant’s motion for leave to withdraw his guilty plea was predicated on the prosecutor’s failure to disclose weaknesses in the People’s case, and not on exculpatory evidence. Therefore, the motion was properly denied. Gulotta, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jaspan, J.), rendered April 26; 1982, convicting him of criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Defendant, over the objection of the prosecutor, admitted his guilt and pleaded guilty to the charge in the indictment. Thereafter, defendant moved, inter alia, for leave to withdraw his plea, on the ground that his decision to plead guilty was influenced by the prosecutor’s failure to disclose Brady material. After a hearing, his motion was denied. We affirm. The law is well settled that “[a] defendant is not entitled to withdraw his plea merely because he discovers * * * that his calculus misapprehended the quality of the State’s case” (see Brady v United States, 397 US 742, 757). In this context, “no prosecutor is obliged to share his appraisal of the weaknesses of his own case (as opposed to specific exculpatory evidence) with defense counsel” (see People v Jones, 44 NY2d 76, 81). Defendant’s motion for leave to withdraw his guilty plea was predicated on the prosecutor’s failure to disclose weaknesses in the People’s case, and not on exculpatory evidence. Therefore, the motion was properly denied. Gulotta, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.2d 805, 463 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pelchat-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack