People v. Temple

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Temple

89 A.D.3d 644, 933 N.Y.2d 280

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 644 (People v. Temple) 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. Temple, 89 A.D.3d 644, 933 N.Y.2d 280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]). “When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances” (People v Brown, 14 NY3d 113, 116 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

The court afforded defendant a sufficient opportunity to present his claims. Although the court expressed skepticism about the merits of the application, it permitted defendant to address the court with regard to each of his claims. Defendant claimed that he was innocent, that his attorney coerced him into pleading guilty, and that he was under the influence of drugs at the time of the plea. However, these claims were conclusory and unsubstantiated. The record establishes that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

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

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]). “When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances” (People v Brown, 14 NY3d 113, 116 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

The court afforded defendant a sufficient opportunity to present his claims. Although the court expressed skepticism about the merits of the application, it permitted defendant to address the court with regard to each of his claims. Defendant claimed that he was innocent, that his attorney coerced him into pleading guilty, and that he was under the influence of drugs at the time of the plea. However, these claims were conclusory and unsubstantiated. The record establishes that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 644, 933 N.Y.2d 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-temple-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack