People v. Simons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Simons

158 A.D.2d 728, 552 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2323

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 728 (People v. Simons) 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. Simons, 158 A.D.2d 728, 552 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

We find that the defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his plea of guilty was properly denied since the plea was knowingly and voluntarily made, after the court had fully apprised him of the consequences of his plea (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9).

Additionally, the record is devoid of facts to support the defendant’s conclusory allegations that his plea should have been vacated and that he was entitled to the assignment of new counsel because he received a harsher term of imprisonment than that originally offered as a result of his attorney’s ineffectiveness (see, People v Gomez, 142 AD2d 649; People v Melendez, 135 AD2d 660; People v Doherty, 134 AD2d 513). It is clear from the record that the defendant voluntarily accepted the terms that were offered and that he was afforded meaningful representation by defense counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137), as evidenced by the fact that the plea offer was extremely favorable to him.

Finally, we note that defense counsel’s failure to join in the defendant’s pro se application to withdraw his plea did not [729]*729constitute ineffective assistance of counsel since the defendant was provided an adequate opportunity to present his contentions and defense counsel’s actions in this regard worked no discernable prejudice (see, People v Bell, 141 AD2d 749; People v Kelsch, 96 AD2d 677; People v Johnson, 91 AD2d 782). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Kunzeman, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

We find that the defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his plea of guilty was properly denied since the plea was knowingly and voluntarily made, after the court had fully apprised him of the consequences of his plea (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9).

Additionally, the record is devoid of facts to support the defendant’s conclusory allegations that his plea should have been vacated and that he was entitled to the assignment of new counsel because he received a harsher term of imprisonment than that originally offered as a result of his attorney’s ineffectiveness (see, People v Gomez, 142 AD2d 649; People v Melendez, 135 AD2d 660; People v Doherty, 134 AD2d 513). It is clear from the record that the defendant voluntarily accepted the terms that were offered and that he was afforded meaningful representation by defense counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137), as evidenced by the fact that the plea offer was extremely favorable to him.

Finally, we note that defense counsel’s failure to join in the defendant’s pro se application to withdraw his plea did not [729]*729constitute ineffective assistance of counsel since the defendant was provided an adequate opportunity to present his contentions and defense counsel’s actions in this regard worked no discernable prejudice (see, People v Bell, 141 AD2d 749; People v Kelsch, 96 AD2d 677; People v Johnson, 91 AD2d 782). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Kunzeman, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 728, 552 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-simons-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack