You are here: / / Proper Procedures for Handling Pro Se Motions to Withdraw Guilty Pleas...
,

Proper Procedures for Handling Pro Se Motions to Withdraw Guilty Pleas (Alleging Coercion by Defense Counsel) Explained

The Court of Appeals considered two cases in which, after pleading guilty, the defendant made a pro se motion to withdraw the plea, claiming coercion and undue pressure by defense counsel. In both cases the sentencing judge asked for the defense attorney’s position on the pro se motion, which forced both attorneys to take a position adverse to the client’s, which, in turn, required the assignment of new counsel.  The Court explained how the situation should be handled:

…[W]hen a motion to withdraw a plea is patently insufficient on its face, a court may simply deny the motion without making any inquiry. When certain actions or inaction on the part of defense counsel are challenged on the motion, it may very well be necessary for defense counsel to address the matter when asked to by the court. When doing so, defense counsel should be afforded the opportunity to explain his performance with respect to the plea …, but may not take a position on the motion that is adverse to the defendant …. At that point, a conflict of interest arises, and the court must assign a new attorney to represent the defendant on the motion. People v  Mitchell …, Nos 116, 117, CtApp, 6-11-13

 

You might also like
Guilty Plea to Possession of a Weapon Charge in One County Precluded Prosecution for the Same Offense in Another County (Double Jeopardy)
STANDARD OF REVIEW IN COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT REQUIRED AFFIRMANCE OF DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION MOTION.
Alleged Error Did Not Raise a Question of Jurisdiction or Constitute a Constitutional Defect—Therefore the Alleged Error Did Not Survive the Guilty Plea
A CANINE SNIFF FOR DRUGS IS A SEARCH; ALTHOUGH THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAD ALSO RULED THE CANINE SNIFF WAS A SEARCH, THE APPELLATE DIVISION WENT ON TO APPLY THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” STANDARD AND FOUND THAT STANDARD HAD BEEN MET BY THE FACTS; THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE APPELLATE DIVISION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RULE ADVERSELY TO THE DEFENDANT ON THE STANDARD BECAUSE COUNTY COURT HAD NOT RULED ON THAT ISSUE (COUNTY COURT HELD THE SNIFF WAS NOT A SEARCH); THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO COUNTY COURT FOR RULINGS ON THE STANDARD FOR A SNIFF SEARCH (CT APP). ​
RUNNING A DMV DATABASE SEARCH FOR A VEHICLE’S PLATE NUMBER IS NOT A SEARCH, THEREFORE THE DMV CHECK CAN BE RUN WITHOUT ANY ARTICULABLE REASON FOR STOPPING A VEHICLE.
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WAS PROPERLY DENIED AND THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST (CT APP).
Failure to Apply the Merger Doctrine In a Kidnapping Case is not a “Mode of Proceedings” Error—Failure to Object at Trial Precludes Review
NYC WATER BOARD’S RATE HIKE AND BILL CREDIT WERE NOT IRRATIONAL. ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Beating of Child Combined with Two-Hour Delay in Seeking Help Constituted Depraved... Bear Stearns Complaint Stated a Cause of Action for Indemnification and Should...