Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. Dillard 262 A.D.2d 1044

← Cases

People v. Dillard

262 A.D.2d 1044 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1999-06-18 English

Contents

Majority

p. 1044
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lydell C. Dillard, Appellant.
[693 NYS2d 360]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly advised defendant of the consequences of his plea of guilty to the reduced charge of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10), and defendant entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty (see, People v Murray, 207 AD2d 999 , 1000, lv denied 84 NY2d 1014 ). The court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw the plea. The court provided defendant a reasonable opportunity, through counsel, to advance his claims in support of the motion (see, People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 , 525; People v Murray, supra, at 999-1000 ). Because defendant moved to withdraw the plea prior to sentencing (see, CPL 220.60 [3]), his contention concerning the adequacy of the plea allocution is preserved for our review (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 , 665). However, defendant pleaded guilty to a reduced charge, and thus no factual colloquy was required (see, People v Zimmerman, 219 AD2d 848 , lv denied 88 NY2d 856 ; People v Tirado,

p. 1045
214 AD2d 1044 , 1044-1045). Finally, we reject the contention that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 , 147). “In the context of a guilty plea, a defendant has been afforded meaningful representation when he receives an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel” (People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397 , 404). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Herkimer County, Kirk, J. — Robbery, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Balio, JJ.

Cases cited