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. Woodrow FLEMMING, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered September 15, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea (see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 [1993]; People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332 [1978] ). Defendant asserted that the People induced his plea by means of alleged threats or promises concerning the possible prosecution of his wife. However, the court properly rejected that assertion, based upon the extensive information before it, including submissions by defendant, defense counsel and the prosecutor, as well as the detailed plea allocution and the court's familiarity with the case. Moreover, defendant made the same assertions in a CPL article 440 motion, which the trial court denied, finding these claims to be factually meritless, and this Court denied leave to appeal.
By pleading guilty before his constitutional speedy trial motion was decided, defendant foreclosed the possibility of review (People v. Tatis-Duran, 300 A.D.2d 84, 750 N.Y.S.2d 751 [2002] ). Furthermore, this claim is unreviewable for the additional reason that defendant has not provided the minutes of any of the adjournments that are relevant to this claim (People v. Mack, 306 A.D.2d 115, 759 N.Y.S.2d 878 [2003], lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 622, 767 N.Y.S.2d 405, 799 N.E.2d 628 [2003] ). To the extent that the present record permits review, defendant has not established a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303 [1975] ).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have reviewed the arguments in defendant's pro se supplemental brief and find them unavailing.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 09, 2006
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)