From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cannon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 1, 1989
150 A.D.2d 383 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

May 1, 1989

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The sentencing court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's application to withdraw his plea (CPL 220.60; People v Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 524-525). The defendant was fully informed of the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty and admitted the acts constituting the crime without making any claim of innocence. His subsequent generalized assertions of innocence are unsupported by the record and do not entitle him to withdraw his plea (see, People v Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55, 57; People v Tuttle, 141 A.D.2d 584, 585; People v Melendez, 135 A.D.2d 660). Nor did the court err in not holding an evidentiary hearing or conducting further inquiry on the defendant's application to withdraw his plea. The defendant was afforded an ample opportunity to present evidence of his allegations and failed to do so (see, People v Frederick, supra; People v Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927; People v Stubbs, 110 A.D.2d 725, 727). Thompson, J.P., Eiber, Kunzeman, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Cannon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 1, 1989
150 A.D.2d 383 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Cannon

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HOWARD CANNON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 1, 1989

Citations

150 A.D.2d 383 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

People v. Torres

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying…

People v. Terry

Moreover, the sentencing court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's…