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
A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT IS NOT AN ‘INTERNET IDENTIFIER’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CORRECTION LAW, THEREFORE DEFENDANT SEX OFFENDER’S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE IT TO THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES IS NOT A CRIME (CT APP).
“Ensuing Loss” Exception to Coverage Exclusion for Water Damage Did Not Apply to Water Damage Stemming from an “Explosion” of a Water Main Outside Plaintiffs’ Home—The “Ensuing Loss” Exception in the Policy Referred Only to Water Damage which Stemmed from a Covered Peril (Like a Fire)
THE DEFENDANT, THINKING THAT THE PERSON TRYING TO BREAK-IN WAS HER ESTRANGED HUSBAND WHO HAD BROKEN IN AND ATTACKED HER BEFORE, FIRED A SINGLE SHOT THROUGH THE METAL DOOR, KILLING THE VICTIM (WHO WAS NOT HER ESTRANGED HUSBAND); BECAUSE HER USE OF THE WEAPON WAS DEEMED DANGEROUS AND RECKLESS, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE TEMPORARY AND LAWFUL USE OF A WEAPON JURY INSTRUCTION (CT APP).
A REGULATORY AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD IN CONNECTION WITH AN FHA MORTGAGE, WHICH REQUIRED THAT THE LANDLORD KEEP THE PROPERTY IN GOOD REPAIR, DID NOT CHANGE THE TERMS OF THE LEASE WHICH MADE THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRS; THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD THEREFORE IS NOT LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY A ROOF LEAK (CT APP).
IN AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION OF THE LAW, THE WAIVERS OF APPEAL IN TWO OF THE THREE APPEALS BEFORE THE COURT WERE DECLARED INVALID BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN THE ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION THAT ALL AVENUES OF APPEAL AND COLLATERAL RELIEF ARE CUT OFF BY THE WAIVER; IN ADDITION THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT THE OMISSION OF THE APPROXIMATE TIME AND PLACE OF AN OFFENSE FROM A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) OR A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL ERROR (CT APP).
DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE ACTIONS OF DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE NOT SPECIFIC OR SERIOUS ENOUGH TO WARRANT AN INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539.
HAIL Act Regulating Taxi Cabs and Livery Vehicles in New York City Does Not Violate Home Rule Section of State Constitution

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...