People v. Vanderpool

49 A.D.3d 1273, 852 N.Y.2d 897

Opinion

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of attempted rape in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.35 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw the plea (see generally People v Thomas, 39 AD3d 1197, 1199 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 869 [2007]). Indeed, the record of the plea proceeding belies the contention of defendant that he believed that he was pleading guilty to a different crime (see People v Vinals, 2 AD3d 1210, 1211 [2003]), as well as his contention that he was impaired by his use of an antidepressant prescription medication when he entered the plea (see People v Oyague, 237 AD2d 311 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 862 [1997]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Smith, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

People v. Vanderpool, 49 A.D.3d 1273, 852 N.Y.2d 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

49 A.D.3d 1273 (People v. Vanderpool) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Vinals
2 A.D.3d 1210 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
People v. Thomas
39 A.D.3d 1197 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Oyague
237 A.D.2d 311 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)