Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered May 23, 2007, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The People met their burden of establishing a valid consent search. The court had the unique opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, and there is no basis for disturbing its credibility determinations (see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380 [1977] ).
After proceedings at which defendant was represented by new counsel, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332 [1978] ). During his plea allocution, defendant acknowledged that he understood the terms of his plea, understood that any decision on parole would be left up to the parole authorities, and acknowledged that, aside from certain promises enumerated on the record, no other promise had induced his plea. As a result, defendant was not entitled to withdraw his plea on the basis of his uncorroborated assertion that his prior attorney had misinformed him he would actually be granted parole upon the expiration of his minimum term (see People v. Avery, 18 A.D.3d 244, 793 N.Y.S.2d 912 [2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 825, 804 N.Y.S.2d 40, 837 N.E.2d 739 [2005] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 05, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)