You are here: / / DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO EXPLAIN WHY HE WANTED TO WITHDRAW...
,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO EXPLAIN WHY HE WANTED TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, remitting the matter to Supreme Court to allow defendant to explain his desire to withdraw his plea, determined the sentencing court should not have prevented defendant from giving his reasons:

The court convened for sentencing, at which time defense counsel stated that defendant wanted to withdraw the plea, explaining that defendant had done his own legal research and determined that the appeal waiver encompassed issues that he wanted to raise on appeal. Defense counsel asked to be relieved due to an unspecified conflict of interest. Defense counsel, speaking in hypothetical terms, argued that withdrawal of the plea may be justified if defendant did not receive meaningful representation. The court questioned defendant directly. Defendant confirmed that he wanted to withdraw his plea. The prosecutor then asked the court to inquire into defendant’s grounds for the motion. Defense counsel objected, and the court ruled in defense counsel’s favor, apparently on the ground that such questioning might impermissibly intrude on privileged conversations. “[T]hat’s something you’d have to talk to a lawyer about,” the court explained, “[b]ut I’m going to deny that request.” The court added that defendant had executed a written appeal waiver. Defendant began to explain why he had executed the waiver, but the court stopped him from doing so, stating, “It’s not your turn to talk right now.” …

Although we agree with our dissenting colleagues that defense counsel did not take a position adverse to defendant, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court erroneously deprived defendant of a reasonable opportunity to present his contentions in support of his motion to withdraw the plea … . People v Ramos, 2020 NY Slip Op 03364, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

You might also like
SURROGATE’S COURT, IN AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE PETITION FOR JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT AND FINAL ACCOUNTING REGARDING A TRUST, DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Stay of Arbitration Properly Denied, Collective Bargaining Agreement Allowed Issue to Be Determined in Arbitration
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION CASE, THE INVESTIGATOR’S ASKING DEFENDANT WHERE HE RESIDED WAS DESIGNED TO ELICIT AN INCRIMINATING RESPONSE, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE WAS NOT PEDIGREE INFORMATION AND A CPL 710.30 NOTICE WAS REQUIRED, ADMISSION OF THE STATEMENT WAS HARMLESS ERROR HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT).
Statements Constituted Opinion, Not Facts/Defamation Complaint Against Syracuse Basketball Coach Dismissed for Failure to State a Cause of Action
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).
BECAUSE OF UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTORY LANGUAGE, DEFENDANT’S MICHIGAN CONVICTION WAS DEEMED A “SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE” EVEN THOUGH THE SAME CONDUCT IN NEW YORK WOULD NOT QUALIFY AS A “SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE;” STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

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

QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS MADE A REASONABLE... UNDER THE TERMS OF THE MORTGAGE, THE DEATH OF THE BORROWER DID NOT ACCELERATE...