AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

The People, etc., respondent, v. Antonio Potter, appellant.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9). The County Court properly denied the defendant's motion to vacate his plea without a hearing, as his conclusory allegations of innocence and of ineffective assistance of counsel were contradicted by the record and were insufficient to warrant vacatur of the plea (see People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520; People v. Dunbar, 260 A.D.2d 644; People v. D'Orio, 210 A.D.2d 424). Furthermore, the County Court properly denied the motion without assigning new counsel (see People v. Caple, 279 A.D.2d 635).

The defendant forfeited his right to be present at sentencing by his disruptive conduct (see People v. Curtis, 286 A.D.2d 900, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 728; People v. Santos, 283 A.D.2d 264; see also People v. Stroman, 36 N.Y.2d 939).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit, or review is precluded by his waiver of his right to appeal. The issue raised in the defendant's supplemental brief is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636).

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., O'BRIEN, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. POTTER
(May 28, 2002)