People v. Scott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Scott

168 A.D.2d 835, 565 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15746

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 835 (People v. Scott) 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. Scott, 168 A.D.2d 835, 565 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.), rendered September 29, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the first degree.

The minutes of the thorough plea colloquy directly refute defendant’s contention that he pleaded guilty under the mistaken impression that he would receive a sentence of imprisonment of 4 to 8 years instead of 6 to 12 years. Defendant presented no other specific evidence to support his motion. Consequently, we find no abuse of discretion in County Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see, People v Franco, 145 AD2d 837; People v Zuk, 130 AD2d 886, 887-888, lv denied 70 NY2d 659). The record also establishes that the court gave defendant ample opportunity to set forth and substantiate his claims in support of his motion (see, People v Zuk, supra, at 888). Finally, defendant has not shown that defense counsel failed to meet the standards enunciated in People v Baldi (54 NY2d 137).

Judgment affirmed. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.), rendered September 29, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the first degree.

The minutes of the thorough plea colloquy directly refute defendant’s contention that he pleaded guilty under the mistaken impression that he would receive a sentence of imprisonment of 4 to 8 years instead of 6 to 12 years. Defendant presented no other specific evidence to support his motion. Consequently, we find no abuse of discretion in County Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see, People v Franco, 145 AD2d 837; People v Zuk, 130 AD2d 886, 887-888, lv denied 70 NY2d 659). The record also establishes that the court gave defendant ample opportunity to set forth and substantiate his claims in support of his motion (see, People v Zuk, supra, at 888). Finally, defendant has not shown that defense counsel failed to meet the standards enunciated in People v Baldi (54 NY2d 137).

Judgment affirmed. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 835, 565 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-scott-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack