People v. Scannell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Scannell

134 A.D.3d 738, 19 N.Y.S.3d 772

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

DecidedDecember 2, 2015

Docket2013-05468

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 A.D.3d 738 (People v. Scannell) 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. Scannell, 134 A.D.3d 738, 19 N.Y.S.3d 772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered April 23, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he should have been afforded an opportunity to withdraw his plea because the County Court was involved in the plea negotiations between his attorneys and the District Attorney is without merit. Although rule 11 (c) (1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits federal judges from participating in the plea bargaining process, it has been recognized that this rule does not apply to state courts, and “does not necessarily establish a constitutional prohibition” (Frank v Blackburn, 646 F2d 873, 882 [1980]; see McMahon v Hodges, 382 F3d 284, 289 n 5 [2004]; Damiano v Gaughan, 770 F2d 1 [1985]; Toler v Wyrick, 563 F2d 372, 374 [1977]). “In New York State courts, a trial judge is permitted to participate in plea negotiations with criminal defendants” (McMahon v Hodges, 382 F3d at 289 n 5, citing People v Fontaine, 28 NY2d 592, 593 [1971]). Accordingly, the fact that the County Court was involved in the defendant’s plea negotiations was an insufficient basis upon which to require that the defendant be given an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and LaSalle, 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, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered April 23, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he should have been afforded an opportunity to withdraw his plea because the County Court was involved in the plea negotiations between his attorneys and the District Attorney is without merit. Although rule 11 (c) (1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits federal judges from participating in the plea bargaining process, it has been recognized that this rule does not apply to state courts, and “does not necessarily establish a constitutional prohibition” (Frank v Blackburn, 646 F2d 873, 882 [1980]; see McMahon v Hodges, 382 F3d 284, 289 n 5 [2004]; Damiano v Gaughan, 770 F2d 1 [1985]; Toler v Wyrick, 563 F2d 372, 374 [1977]). “In New York State courts, a trial judge is permitted to participate in plea negotiations with criminal defendants” (McMahon v Hodges, 382 F3d at 289 n 5, citing People v Fontaine, 28 NY2d 592, 593 [1971]). Accordingly, the fact that the County Court was involved in the defendant’s plea negotiations was an insufficient basis upon which to require that the defendant be given an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 738, 19 N.Y.S.3d 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-scannell-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack