People v. Winters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Winters

177 A.D.2d 1041, 578 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15841

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 177 A.D.2d 1041 (People v. Winters) 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. Winters, 177 A.D.2d 1041, 578 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: When defendant’s plea colloquy revealed the possibility of an agency defense, the court made inquiry and ascertained from defense counsel that she and defendant had discussed this defense in detail and defendant had decided not to pursue it. That inquiry was sufficient to satisfy the court’s responsibility under People v Serrano (15 NY2d 304; see also, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662). Moreover, when defense counsel was unable to provide the court with evidence of defendant’s belated assertion that there were three witnesses to the drug sale who could testify on his behalf, despite being given an adjournment for this purpose, the court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. Defendant’s contentions that he was unaware of the sentencing possibilities when he took the plea and that his [1042]*1042plea was induced by the promise of probation by the District Attorney’s Office cannot be reviewed on this record and are more properly raised in a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10.

We decline to modify defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice. (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: When defendant’s plea colloquy revealed the possibility of an agency defense, the court made inquiry and ascertained from defense counsel that she and defendant had discussed this defense in detail and defendant had decided not to pursue it. That inquiry was sufficient to satisfy the court’s responsibility under People v Serrano (15 NY2d 304; see also, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662). Moreover, when defense counsel was unable to provide the court with evidence of defendant’s belated assertion that there were three witnesses to the drug sale who could testify on his behalf, despite being given an adjournment for this purpose, the court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. Defendant’s contentions that he was unaware of the sentencing possibilities when he took the plea and that his [1042]*1042plea was induced by the promise of probation by the District Attorney’s Office cannot be reviewed on this record and are more properly raised in a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10.

We decline to modify defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice. (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D.2d 1041, 578 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-winters-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack