People v. Redd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Redd

64 A.D.3d 418, 881 N.Y.S.2d 296

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

DecidedJuly 2, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.D.3d 418 (People v. Redd) 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. Redd, 64 A.D.3d 418, 881 N.Y.S.2d 296 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered January 11, 2008, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of eight years and five years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea without a hearing and without appointing new counsel. Defendant received a sufficient opportunity to present his assertions both in writing and at sentencing (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520, 525 [1978]). The motion consisted of vague and conclusory allegations of innocence, lack of comprehension and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court was entitled to rely on the plea colloquy, which contradicted defendant’s assertions. That counsel did not join in defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, and that counsel briefly responded to defendant’s assertion that counsel had not discussed the plea with him, did not create a conflict of interest (see e.g. People v Mangum, 12 AD3d 207 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 765 [2005]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Mazzarelli, 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 (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered January 11, 2008, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of eight years and five years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea without a hearing and without appointing new counsel. Defendant received a sufficient opportunity to present his assertions both in writing and at sentencing (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520, 525 [1978]). The motion consisted of vague and conclusory allegations of innocence, lack of comprehension and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court was entitled to rely on the plea colloquy, which contradicted defendant’s assertions. That counsel did not join in defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, and that counsel briefly responded to defendant’s assertion that counsel had not discussed the plea with him, did not create a conflict of interest (see e.g. People v Mangum, 12 AD3d 207 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 765 [2005]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.3d 418, 881 N.Y.S.2d 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-redd-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack