You are here: / / DENIAL OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA WITHOUT A HEARING WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF...

DENIAL OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA WITHOUT A HEARING WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

The Court of Appeals determined that defendant's motion to withdraw his plea was properly denied without a hearing:

“When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances” … . .”[O]ften, a limited interrogation by the court will suffice” … . Here, the court gave the parties an opportunity to argue in furtherance of the motion to withdraw the plea, and because both parties declined, the motion was appropriately decided on the written submissions. Furthermore, while defense counsel claimed that defendant had been pressured by his family to take the plea, this Court has “never recognized 'coercion' by family members as a reason for withdrawing a guilty plea”… , and the record here does not demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion on that ground. Additionally, given defendant's silence in any sworn statement regarding his alleged use of drugs and alcohol and the court's ability to observe defendant during the colloquy …, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to have denied the motion to withdraw the plea without holding a hearing. People v Manor, 2016 NY Slip Op 03414, CtApp 5-3-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DENIAL OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA WITHOUT A HEARING WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)/WITHDRAW PLEA, MOTION TO (DENIAL OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA WITHOUT A HEARING WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)

You might also like
THE FACT THAT THE SENTENCING COURT IN 2016 DID NOT USE DEFENDANT’S 2006 CONVICTION TO ENHANCE HIS SENTENCE DID NOT REQUIRE THE SORA COURT TO IGNORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WHICH WAS NEVER DIRECTLY ATTACKED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS NEVER VACATED; THEREFORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY RELIED UPON BY THE SORA COURT TO ASSESS DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE RISK (CT APP).
THE ELEVEN YEAR ELECTION LAW (EYEL), WHICH MANDATES EVEN-YEAR COUNTY ELECTIONS, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE MUNICIPAL HOME RULE PROVISIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION; THE CHALLENGE BY COUNTIES WITH CHARTER PROVISIONS MANDATING ODD-YEAR ELECTIONS WAS REJECTED (CT APP).
ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT CHARGING DEFENDANT WITH PATRONIZING A PROSTITUTE WAS NOT JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE A CLINICAL PHRASE WAS USED TO DESCRIBE SEXUAL ACTIVITY (CT APP).
NYPD’S WRITTEN INVENTORY SEARCH PROTOCOL IS CONSTITUTIONAL; HERE THE INVENTORY SEARCH OF THE TRUNK OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE TURNED UP A FIREARM (CT APP). ​
CIVIL SERVICE LAW SECTION 71 ALLOWS THE CITY TO TERMINATE AN EMPLOYEE WHO WAS INJURED ON THE JOB AND IS UNABLE TO RETURN TO WORK AFTER A YEAR; THE PROCEDURE FOR TERMINATING SUCH AN EMPLOYEE IS SUBJECT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REQUIREMENT OF THE TAYLOR LAW (CIVIL SERVICE LAW SECTION 200 ET SEQ) (CT APP).
DEFENDANT WAS WEARING A STUN BELT DURING THE TRIAL WITHOUT THE JUDGE’S OR PROSECUTOR’S KNOWLEDGE; THE MAJORITY HELD THIS WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR; A TWO-JUDGE DISSENT DISAGREED (CT APP).
THE DEFENSE WAS TIMELY PROVIDED WITH IMPEACHMENT INFORMATION REGARDING AN ARRESTING OFFICER; THE FACT THAT AN ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT WITH THAT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED AFTER THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (COC) WAS FILED, DID NOT RENDER THE PROSECUTION UNTIMELY (CT APP).
AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CAUSE OF FALL SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED WITH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DEFENSE... PEOPLE NEED NOT PROVE DEFENDANT KNEW THE KNIFE DEFENDANT POSSESSED MET THE STATUTORY...