THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. DANTERIUS STUCKEY DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2026)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. DANTERIUS J. STUCKEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

448 Decided: July 24, 2026

PRESENT: CURRAN, J.P., BANNISTER, MONTOUR, GREENWOOD, AND HANNAH, JJ.

LAW OFFICE OF VERONICA REED, SCHENECTADY (VERONICA REED OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ASHLEY J. WILLIAMS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (AMANDA B. NEWTON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 205.25 [2]), defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. We reject that contention.

“[P]ermission to withdraw a guilty plea rests solely within the court's discretion ․, and refusal to permit withdrawal does not constitute an abuse of that discretion unless there is some evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in inducing [a] plea” (People v Alexander, 203 AD3d 1569, 1570 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1031 [2022] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Contrary to defendant's contention, there was no record support for his claim of actual innocence, and the court thus did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion insofar as it sought to withdraw his plea on that ground (see People v Johnson, 229 AD3d 1300, 1302-1303 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1020 [2024]; People v Worthy, 46 AD3d 1382, 1382 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 773 [2008]). Defendant's contention that his motion should have been granted because defense counsel did not communicate with him about the benefits of entering the plea compared to the risks of proceeding to trial concerns matters outside the record on appeal and must therefore be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 (see Johnson, 229 AD3d at 1303; People v Dale, 142 AD3d 1287, 1290 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]).

Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for our review (see generally People v Jones, 211 AD3d 1489, 1490 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 40 NY3d 929 [2023]; People v Scales, 118 AD3d 1500, 1500 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1067 [2014]), and we decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).

Entered: July 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network