People v. Webley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Webley

256 A.D.2d 1119, 684 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14223

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1119 (People v. Webley) 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. Webley, 256 A.D.2d 1119, 684 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14223 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of two counts of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and sentenced in accordance with the plea bargain to consecutive terms of imprisonment. The record establishes that the guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered (see, People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543). Defendant contends that the guilty plea was defective because during the colloquy he indicated facts giving rise to a possible justification defense. Defendant, however, informed County Court at the time of the plea that he had discussed that possible defense with his attorney (see, People v Johnson, 91 AD2d 782, 783).

Furthermore, the court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying defendant’s motion to withdraw the guilty plea [1120]*1120based upon generalized claims and conclusory allegations that are unsupported by the record (see, People v Dixon, 29 NY2d 55, 57; People v D’Orio, 210 AD2d 424, lv denied 85 NY2d 972; People v Mercedes, 171 AD2d 1044, 1044-1045, lv denied 77 NY2d 998). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe, and defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404). (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Donalty, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present— Green, J. P., Wisner, Hayes, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of two counts of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and sentenced in accordance with the plea bargain to consecutive terms of imprisonment. The record establishes that the guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered (see, People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543). Defendant contends that the guilty plea was defective because during the colloquy he indicated facts giving rise to a possible justification defense. Defendant, however, informed County Court at the time of the plea that he had discussed that possible defense with his attorney (see, People v Johnson, 91 AD2d 782, 783).

Furthermore, the court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying defendant’s motion to withdraw the guilty plea [1120]*1120based upon generalized claims and conclusory allegations that are unsupported by the record (see, People v Dixon, 29 NY2d 55, 57; People v D’Orio, 210 AD2d 424, lv denied 85 NY2d 972; People v Mercedes, 171 AD2d 1044, 1044-1045, lv denied 77 NY2d 998). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe, and defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404). (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Donalty, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present— Green, J. P., Wisner, Hayes, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1119, 684 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-webley-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack