From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Horton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 31, 1990
168 A.D.2d 689 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

December 31, 1990

Appeal from the County Court, Dutchess County (King, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It is well settled that the decision as to whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court (see, People v. Hagzan, 155 A.D.2d 616, 617; People v. Camacho, 154 A.D.2d 611). In the instant case, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily made a complete plea allocution in the presence of competent counsel, after the court had fully apprised him of the consequences of his plea (see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9). The basis asserted by the defendant for his application to withdraw his plea was the agency defense. However, his claim was factually insufficient to support the defense (see, People v. Roche, 45 N.Y.2d 78, 83, cert denied 439 U.S. 958). Moreover, it appeared that the real reason for the application was that he was unhappy that he had not been released from jail prior to sentencing. Under these circumstances, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Horton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 31, 1990
168 A.D.2d 689 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Horton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER HORTON…

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

Date published: Dec 31, 1990

Citations

168 A.D.2d 689 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
563 N.Y.S.2d 512

Citing Cases

People v. Moody

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of…