From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 12, 1999
257 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

January 12, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.).


There was no violation of defendant's right to counsel at the court-ordered lineup since the Legal Aid Society was duly notified and an attorney was provided. Defendant's claim that he requested the presence of the attorney representing him in a pending, unrelated Westchester County matter is unsupported by the record and the People were under no obligation to notify that attorney ( People v. Walker, 216 A.D.2d 426; cf., People v. Coates, 74 N.Y.2d 244, 249).

Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea was properly denied. The court's review of defendant's written motion constituted a sufficient inquiry ( People v. Swinson, 240 A.D.2d 299, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 911). The record of the plea proceedings and the court's own recollection established that defendant's plea was voluntarily entered into with a full understanding of the consequences, belying defendant's unsupported claim that he was under the influence of drugs at the time ( see, People v. Clarke, 251 A.D.2d 7).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Lerner, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 12, 1999
257 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Murray

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES O. MURRAY, III…

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

Date published: Jan 12, 1999

Citations

257 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
684 N.Y.S.2d 512

Citing Cases

People v. Jimenez

Moreover, this Court, during the extensive plea allocution, observed the defendant's appearance, demeanor,…

People v. Jimenez

Moreover, this Court, during the extensive plea allocution, observed the defendant's appearance, demeanor,…