People v. Stuckey
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Stuckey
2026 NY Slip Op 04642
July 24, 2026
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v
DANTERIUS J. STUCKEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Decided on July 24, 2026
448 KA 25-00024
Present: Curran, J.P., Bannister, Montour, Greenwood, And Hannah, JJ.
LAW OFFICE OF VERONICA REED, SCHENECTADY (VERONICA REED OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
ASHLEY J. WILLIAMS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (AMANDA B. NEWTON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Jennifer M. Noto, J.), rendered November 7, 2024. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.
[*1]It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 205.25 [2]), defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. We reject that contention.
"[P]ermission to withdraw a guilty plea rests solely within the court's discretion . . . , and refusal to permit withdrawal does not constitute an abuse of that discretion unless there is some evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in inducing [a] plea" (People v Alexander, 203 AD3d 1569, 1570 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1031 [2022] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Contrary to defendant's contention, there was no record support for his claim of actual innocence, and the court thus did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion insofar as it sought to withdraw his plea on that ground (see People v Johnson, 229 AD3d 1300, 1302-1303 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1020 [2024]; People v Worthy, 46 AD3d 1382, 1382 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 773 [2008]). Defendant's contention that his motion should have been granted because defense counsel did not communicate with him about the benefits of entering the plea compared to the risks of proceeding to trial concerns matters outside the record on appeal and must therefore be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 (see Johnson, 229 AD3d at 1303; People v
Dale, 142 AD3d 1287, 1290 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]).
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for our review (see generally People v Jones, 211 AD3d 1489, 1490 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 40 NY3d 929 [2023]; People v Scales, 118 AD3d 1500, 1500 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1067 [2014]), and we decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).
Entered: July 24, 2026
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Stuckey (People v. Stuckey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.