People v. Donald Odell Green — Appellate Division, Second Department (Aug. 14, 1989)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellate Division reviewed an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.). The challenged proceedings involved the defendant's guilty plea and the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to withdraw that plea. The opinion affirms the trial court's judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the defendant's guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered.
Whether the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to an alleged prior attorney-client relationship between the defendant and the Trial Justice, and whether the Trial Judge should have recused himself.
Whether other contentions raised by the defendant merit appellate review or are unpreserved for review.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9	Standard for determining whether a guilty plea is knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered.	The court cited Harris as support for its finding that the defendant's guilty plea met the required standard of being knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered.
People v. Shields, 134 A.D.2d 541	Standard governing the trial court's discretion to deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.	The court relied on Shields in concluding that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded as follows:

On the guilty plea: The court determined, citing People v. Harris, that the defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. The opinion states this conclusion without expanding on factual details supporting that determination.
On the motion to withdraw the plea: The court concluded, referencing People v. Shields, that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
On jurisdiction and recusal: The defendant contended the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because of an alleged prior attorney-client relationship with the Trial Justice and argued the Trial Judge should have recused himself. The court found this contention without merit. It noted the recusal claim rested on matter dehors the record, and further observed that the claim was first raised in a posttrial motion under CPL 440.10. Because the defendant did not seek leave to appeal the denial of that motion, the court held the issue was not properly before it.
On other contentions: The court stated that the defendant's remaining contentions were either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review, and the court declined to address them in the exercise of its interest of justice jurisdiction.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The judgment of the County Court is AFFIRMED.

Implications: The direct effect of the decision is the affirmation of the trial court's conviction and the denial of the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The opinion addresses specific procedural and preservation issues (notably the recusal/jurisdiction claim raised on CPL 440.10 motion and not appealed) and declines to reach other unpreserved or meritless contentions. The opinion does not purport to announce or establish a new legal precedent beyond applying existing authorities cited above.

Disposition: Mangano, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concurred.

Show full summary ...

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DONALD ODELL GREEN, Appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the defendant's guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered (see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9). In addition, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see, People v. Shields, 134 A.D.2d 541).

There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the trial court was "without subject matter jurisdiction" due to an alleged previous attorney-client relationship between the defendant and the Trial Justice. Insofar as the defendant contends that the Trial Judge should have recused himself, we note that this issue is based upon matter dehors the record. Further, the issue was first raised in the defendant's posttrial motion, pursuant to CPL 440.10, but leave to appeal the denial of the motion was not sought by the defendant. Accordingly, the issue is not properly before this court.

The defendant's other contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

PEOPLE v. GREEN