People v. Rivera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rivera

47 A.D.3d 418, 849 N.Y.S.2d 230

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.3d 418 (People v. Rivera) 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. Rivera, 47 A.D.3d 418, 849 N.Y.S.2d 230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered July 5, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying, [419]*419without a hearing, defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]), since defendant’s unsubstantiated claims were refuted by his plea allocution. Defendant submitted a standard form lacking any case-specific allegations, and his oral submission added nothing of substance (see People v Little, 37 AD3d 214 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 987 [2007]). The record establishes that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary.

Defendant did not establish any good cause for a reassignment of counsel, or any facts that warranted further inquiry by the court. The record demonstrates that counsel provided effective assistance (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Concur—Andrias, J.E, Nardelli, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered July 5, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying, [419]*419without a hearing, defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]), since defendant’s unsubstantiated claims were refuted by his plea allocution. Defendant submitted a standard form lacking any case-specific allegations, and his oral submission added nothing of substance (see People v Little, 37 AD3d 214 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 987 [2007]). The record establishes that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary.

Defendant did not establish any good cause for a reassignment of counsel, or any facts that warranted further inquiry by the court. The record demonstrates that counsel provided effective assistance (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Concur—Andrias, J.E, Nardelli, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 418, 849 N.Y.S.2d 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rivera-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack