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, etc., respondent, v. Charles CUMMINGS, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rienzi, J.), rendered July 13, 2005, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The right of a defendant to withdraw a previously-entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the sentencing court (see People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797; People v. Mann, 32 A.D.3d 865, 821 N.Y.S.2d 616; People v. Kucharczyk, 15 A.D.3d 595, 790 N.Y.S.2d 522), whose determination generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see People v. DeLeon, 40 A.D.3d 1008, 837 N.Y.S.2d 189). In this case, the record reveals that the defendant entered his plea of guilty knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, having reached a favorable plea bargain with the assistance of competent counsel, with whose representation the defendant was satisfied (see People v. Mann, 32 A.D.3d 865, 821 N.Y.S.2d 616). The defendant's generalized and unsubstantiated claim of innocence at the time of sentencing was not sufficient to warrant the vacatur of the plea of guilty (see People v. DeJesus, 199 A.D.2d 529, 530, 606 N.Y.S.2d 255; People v. Carter, 191 A.D.2d 640, 595 N.Y.S.2d 219; People v. Stephens, 175 A.D.2d 272, 572 N.Y.S.2d 725; People v. Williams, 156 A.D.2d 497, 548 N.Y.S.2d 772).
The defendant's contention that the resentencing provisions of the Drug Law Reform Act of 2005 (L. 2005, ch. 643) (hereinafter the Act) violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and New York Constitutions because they do not apply to his crime, which was committed prior to the effective date of the Act, is unpreserved for appellate review, inasmuch as he failed to raise this issue either in his motion to withdraw his plea or at the time of sentencing (see People v. Duke, 40 A.D.3d 872, 836 N.Y.S.2d 263).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: July 15, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)