People v. Tobar

92 A.D.3d 906, 938 N.Y.2d 819
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 21, 2012·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[907]*907Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911 [1990]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16 [1983]; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338 [1967], cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067 [1969]). The Supreme Court properly conducted the plea allocution (see People v Nixon, 21 NY2d at 353).

The defendant was provided with the effective assistance of counsel (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). The defendant’s unsubstantiated claims of coercion and dissatisfaction with the representation by his counsel, which were refuted by his statements during the plea allocution, do not warrant a hearing (see generally People v Massey, 70 AD3d 722 [2010]; People v Hughes, 62 AD3d 1026 [2009]). Rivera, J.E, Angiolillo, Leventhal and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Tobar, 92 A.D.3d 906, 938 N.Y.2d 819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

92 A.D.3d 906 (People v. Tobar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Pelaez
100 A.D.3d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)