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. CLEOPHIS HARRIS, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39[1] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court did not ignore his oral motion to withdraw his plea or fail to set forth for judicial review any decision with respect thereto. Instead, the court explicitly and properly denied defendant's oral motion to withdraw the plea based upon the absence of any record support for defendant's conclusory assertion that his guilty plea had been coerced (see People v. Allen, 99 AD3d 1252, 1252). Furthermore, the court accorded defendant a reasonable opportunity to present his contentions and did not “abuse its discretion in concluding that no further inquiry was necessary” (People v. Strasser, 83 AD3d 1411, 1411; cf. People v. Days, 125 AD3d 1508, 1508–1509).
Contrary to his further contention, defendant was not “deprived of effective assistance of counsel at sentencing based on his attorney's refusal to incorporate the arguments raised by defendant at sentencing into [a] written motion to withdraw defendant's plea” (People v. Green, 132 AD3d 1268, 1269, lv denied 27 NY3d 1069). Furthermore, “defense counsel's failure to join in [defendant's oral] motion did not constitute ineffective assistance” (People v. Weinstock,
129 AD3d 1663, 1664, lv denied 26 NY3d 1012).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: KA 14–02057
Decided: September 30, 2016
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)