People v. Woodberry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Woodberry

216 A.D.2d 597, 628 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7052

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

DecidedJune 26, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 597 (People v. Woodberry) 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. Woodberry, 216 A.D.2d 597, 628 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7052 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the [598]*598defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), both rendered January 27, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (two counts, one as to each indictment), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his application to withdraw his pleas of guilty (see, People v Ladelokun, 192 AD2d 723; People v Pettway, 140 AD2d 721, 722). Additionally, the record of the plea allocutions demonstrates that the trial court, when confronted with statements casting doubt upon the defendant’s guilt, properly conducted further inquiry to ensure that the defendant’s pleas were knowing and voluntary, and that he possessed the necessary criminal intent (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662).

Contrary to his contention, the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). The defendant’s attorney negotiated advantageous plea agreements that substantially limited the defendant’s exposure to imprisonment (see, People v Ladelokun, 192 AD2d 723, supra; People v Nicholls, 157 AD2d 1004). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the [598]*598defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), both rendered January 27, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (two counts, one as to each indictment), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his application to withdraw his pleas of guilty (see, People v Ladelokun, 192 AD2d 723; People v Pettway, 140 AD2d 721, 722). Additionally, the record of the plea allocutions demonstrates that the trial court, when confronted with statements casting doubt upon the defendant’s guilt, properly conducted further inquiry to ensure that the defendant’s pleas were knowing and voluntary, and that he possessed the necessary criminal intent (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662).

Contrary to his contention, the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). The defendant’s attorney negotiated advantageous plea agreements that substantially limited the defendant’s exposure to imprisonment (see, People v Ladelokun, 192 AD2d 723, supra; People v Nicholls, 157 AD2d 1004). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 597, 628 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-woodberry-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack