You are here: / / WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED AT SENTENCING HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE...
,

WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED AT SENTENCING HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE RELEVANT OFFENSES THE SENTENCING JUDGE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT ABOUT WHETHER HIS WISHED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, FAILURE TO DO SO REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Third Department determined statements made by the defendant at his sentencing, denying involvement in at least one of the relevant offenses, raised questions about whether plea was voluntary and required further inquiry, including whether defendant wished to withdraw his plea:

​

… [W]hile the issue most often arises during the plea allocution… , the Court of Appeals has recognized that a defendant may negate an element of the crime to which a plea has been entered or make a statement suggestive of an involuntary plea at postplea proceedings, including sentencing, which may require the trial court to then conduct a further inquiry or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea … . …

… [W]hen confronted by County Court with the fact that he had pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree, which requires intent to cause serious physical injury to another person … , defendant asserted that it was his deceased friend who “actually did the shooting” and that he “was at the wrong place at the wrong time.” County Court recognized that defendant was denying the intentional assault, but it made no further inquiry. County Court proceeded to sentencing without providing defendant with an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. This was error. Although defendant did not preserve his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea by making a motion to withdraw his plea, his statements at sentencing triggered the exception to the preservation requirement … .. While defendant’s remarks did not necessarily implicate all of the crimes to which he pleaded guilty, because it was an integrated plea agreement with a promised aggregate sentence, the judgment must be reversed in its entirety … . People v Gresham, 2017 NY Slip Op 04498, 3rd Dept 6-8-17

 

SENTENCING (DENIAL OF INVOLVEMENT, WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA, WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED AT SENTENCING HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE RELEVANT OFFENSES THE SENTENCING JUDGE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT ABOUT WHETHER HIS WISHED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, FAILURE TO DO SO REQUIRED REVERSAL)/CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, DENIAL OF INVOLVEMENT, WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA,WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED AT SENTENCING HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE RELEVANT OFFENSES THE SENTENCING JUDGE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT ABOUT WHETHER HIS WISHED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, FAILURE TO DO SO REQUIRED REVERSAL) )/JUDGES (CRIMINAL LAW, SENTENCING, DENIAL OF INVOLVEMENT, WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA, WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED AT SENTENCING HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE RELEVANT OFFENSES THE SENTENCING JUDGE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT ABOUT WHETHER HIS WISHED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, FAILURE TO DO SO REQUIRED REVERSAL)

You might also like
HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT A VEHICLE FOR RELIEF FOR ISSUES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL AND IS NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL A PRISONER IS ENTITLED TO IMMEDIATE RELEASE (THIRD DEPT).
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE SPONTANEOUS USE OF A KNIFE BY THE PERPETRATOR IN THIS MURDER CASE; THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE PERPETRATOR’S INTENT, THEREFORE, WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT).
THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO PROSECUTED DEFENDANT; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).
ATTORNEY’S FEE PROPERLY REDUCED BASED UPON FAILURE TO FULLY FILL OUT THE RELEVANT FORM.
THE OFFICE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SITING (ORES) CONDUCTED A PROPER REVIEW BEFORE ISSUING THE CHALLENGED REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SITING OF MAJOR RENEWABLE ENERGY FACILITIES (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A MISREPRESENTATION BY THE INSURED ABOUT A PRIOR BITE BY A DOG, AND WHETHER THERE ACTUALLY WAS A PRIOR BITE, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER A CANINE POLICY EXCLUSION APPLIED AND WHETHER THERE WAS A TIMELY DISCLAIMER (THIRD DEPT).
Arbitrator Did Not Have the Authority (CPLR 7511) to Modify an Award by Adding Interest, Even If Interest Should Have Been Awarded as a Matter of Law
Road Washout Was Due to a Highway Design Issue for Which Adequate Remedial Planning Had Been Made—The Washout Was Not, Therefore, Caused by a Highway Maintenance Deficiency to Which the Negligence Standard Applies—State Entitled to Qualified Immunity Re: a Vehicle Accident Caused by a Sinkhole

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

MOTION TO CONDITIONALLY SEAL RECORD OF A MISDEMEANOR DRUG CONVICTION SHOULD... UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW, A CHARTER SCHOOL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE ITS OWN...