People v. Wilson, 101 A.D.3d 1248 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
People v. Wilson, 101 A.D.3d 1248 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Pittman (nyappdiv, 2018-11-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pittman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Defendant's claim of coercion is belied by his statements during the plea colloquy, wherein he assured County Court that he had been afforded sufficient time to confer with his family and counsel and was pleading guilty of his own free will ( see People v Taylor , 135 AD3d 1237, 1237 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1075 [2016]; People v Shurock , 83 AD3d 1342, 1344 [2011]), and his remaining arguments — actual innocence and the ineffective assistance of counsel — are not preserved for our review as they were not advanced in his motion to withdraw his plea ( see People v Howe , 164 AD3d 951 , 952…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PeoplevBarnes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
We are not persuaded by defendant's central contention that his statements during the plea colloquy cast doubt on his guilt or on the voluntariness of his guilty plea so as to implicate the exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Newton, 113 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2014]; People v Wilson, 101 AD3d 1248, 1249 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Barnes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
We are not persuaded by defendant’s central contention that his statements during the plea colloquy cast doubt on his guilt or on the voluntariness of his guilty plea so as to implicate the exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Newton, 113 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2014]; People v Wilson, 101 AD3d 1248, 1249 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Barnes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
We are not persuaded by defendant’s central contention that his statements during the plea colloquy cast doubt on his guilt or on the voluntariness of his guilty plea so as to implicate the exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Newton, 113 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2014]; People v Wilson, 101 AD3d 1248, 1249 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Mauro
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Here, defendant’s guilty plea was unequivocal, and his motion papers failed to present any evidence that tends to establish that his plea was less than a knowing, voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternatives available to him at that time (see People v Wilson, 101 AD3d 1248, 1249 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Mauro
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Here, defendant’s guilty plea was unequivocal, and his motion papers failed to present any evidence that tends to establish that his plea was less than a knowing, voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternatives available to him at that time (see People v Wilson, 101 AD3d 1248, 1249 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Saunders
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Moreover, “such motions generally will not be granted absent evidence of fraud, innocence or mistake in the inducement” (People v McKinney, 122 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2014]; see People v Wilson, 101 AD3d 1248, 1249 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Rouse (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
“Whether a defendant should be permitted to withdraw his or her plea rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and, generally, such a motion should not be granted absent a showing of innocence, fraud or mistake in the inducement” (People v Barton, 113 AD3d 927, 928 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Wilson, 101 AD3d 1248, 1249 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" PeoplevRouse (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
"Whether a defendant should be permitted to withdraw his or her plea rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and, generally, such a motion should not be granted absent a showing of innocence, fraud or mistake in the inducement" (People v Barton, 113 AD3d 927, 928 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Wilson, 101 AD3d 1248, 1249 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Rouse (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
“Whether a defendant should be permitted to withdraw his or her plea rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and, generally, such a motion should not be granted absent a showing of innocence, fraud or mistake in the inducement” (People v Barton, 113 AD3d 927, 928 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Wilson, 101 AD3d 1248, 1249 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Fate
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
While defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea survives the appeal waiver (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]), the record on appeal fails to reflect that it was preserved by an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Watson, 115 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2014]), and nothing in the plea colloquy “casts significant doubt upon . . . defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea” so as to implicate the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; see People v Wilson, 101 AD3d 1248,…
discussed Cited "see" People v. Fate
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
While defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea survives the appeal waiver (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]), the record on appeal fails to reflect that it was preserved by an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Watson, 115 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2014]), and nothing in the plea colloquy “casts significant doubt upon . . . defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea” so as to implicate the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; see People v Wilson, 101 AD3d 1248,…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Jamal A. Wilson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 13, 2012.
101 A.D.3d 1248
Spain.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published
Spain, J.

[*1249] Initially, we find no merit to defendant’s contention that County Court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. The decision as to whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and such request will generally not be granted absent a showing of innocence, fraud or mistake in its inducement (see People v Flynn, 92 AD3d 1148, 1150-1151 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 996 [2012]; People v Wilson, 92 AD3d 981, 981 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1029 [2012]). Defendant argues that he entered his pleas to the Warren County charges based on the mistaken belief that his appeal on his Washington County conviction would be successful. However, this issue is unpreserved as defendant did not raise this argument in moving to withdraw his plea (see People v Covell, 276 AD2d 824, 825 [2000]; People v Carter, 254 AD2d 202 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 871 [1999]). Rather, that motion was premised on defendant’s claim that his admissions during the Warren County plea colloquy were inadequate and he had insufficient time to confer with counsel; he now concedes that the allocution was sufficient to establish the elements of the crimes to which he pleaded guilty. At most, defendant asserted — in moving to withdraw his plea — that he had constitutional challenges to raise in the Washington County case, and that the two prosecutions were somehow related, not that he was relying on an appellate reversal of the Washington County conviction.

Further, the plea colloquy did not cast significant doubt on defendant’s guilt or call into question the voluntariness of his plea so as to implicate the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). In any event, mistake in the inducement cannot be established absent misrepresentation or similar impermissible conduct by state agents and, thus, defendant is bound by his choice to plead guilty where the record does not reflect that such decision was induced by any misrepresentation and the plea was otherwise knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Griffin, 89 AD3d 1235, 1237 [2011]; People v Trank, 58 AD3d 1076, 1077 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 860 [2009]).

Nor do we find the sentence imposed by County Court to be harsh or excessive taking into account that defendant’s[*1250] maximum exposure on the counts for which he pleaded guilty was 18 years — which could have been imposed consecutively to his Washington County sentence. The sentence was well within the range promised by the court and was eminently reasonable, subjecting defendant to just IV2 years of additional prison time beyond his Washington County sentence. Further, taking into consideration defendant’s lengthy criminal record, which spans several decades and multiple states, we perceive neither an abuse of discretion nor extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a reduction in his sentence (see People v Merritt, 96 AD3d 1169, 1172 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1027 [2012]; People v Hatchcock, 96 AD3d 1082, 1085 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 997 [2012]).

Peters, P.J., Rose, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.