From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lindsay

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Dec 23, 2015
134 A.D.3d 1452 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

1370 KA 13-01198.

12-23-2015

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James L. LINDSAY, III, Defendant–Appellant.

Erickson Webb Scolton & Hajdu, Lakewood (Lyle T. Hajdu of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. David W. Foley, District Attorney, Mayville (Joseph M. Calimeri of Counsel), for Respondent.


Erickson Webb Scolton & Hajdu, Lakewood (Lyle T. Hajdu of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

David W. Foley, District Attorney, Mayville (Joseph M. Calimeri of Counsel), for Respondent.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25) and two counts of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 11923 ). We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in denying his pro se motion to withdraw his plea without conducting an adequate inquiry. The record establishes that the court afforded defendant the requisite “reasonable opportunity to present his contentions” (people v. tinsleY, 35 n.y.2d 926, 927, 365 n.y.s.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544; see People v. Carter–Doucette, 124 A.D.3d 1323, 1324, 998 N.Y.S.2d 269, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 988, 10 N.Y.S.3d 531, 32 N.E.3d 968), and properly denied the motion inasmuch as defendant's “claims were conclusory and unsubstantiated” (People v. Temple, 89 A.D.3d 644, 644, 933 N.Y.S.2d 280, lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 968, 950 N.Y.S.2d 120, 973 N.E.2d 218). We also reject defendant's contention that the court erred in failing to assign him new counsel before making that determination. “[T]he record belies defendant's contention that defense counsel took a position adverse to that of defendant in his pro se motion to withdraw the plea, and thus there was no reason for the court to assign new counsel” (People v. Rossborough, 105 A.D.3d 1332, 1333, 963 N.Y.S.2d 494, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1045, 972 N.Y.S.2d 542, 995 N.E.2d 858).

Finally, we conclude that defendant's sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

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

SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, VALENTINO, and DeJOSEPH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Lindsay

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Dec 23, 2015
134 A.D.3d 1452 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

People v. Lindsay

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. JAMES L. LINDSAY, III…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Date published: Dec 23, 2015

Citations

134 A.D.3d 1452 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 9516
21 N.Y.S.3d 656

Citing Cases

People v. McCormack

We reject defendant's contention that the plea colloquy was factually insufficient. Defendant admitted the…

People v. McCormack

We reject defendant's contention that the plea colloquy was factually insufficient. Defendant admitted the…