Opinion ID: 2035763
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant's Withdrawal Motion

Text: On March 15, nine days after the plea colloquy, defendant made a motion pro se to withdraw her guilty plea. In the accompanying affidavit she stated that while I acknowledge that the Court advised me that I had certain rights, I nevertheless did not then, nor do I now realize the full consequences of my plea of guilty. I am not guilty of the offenses to which I pleaded guilty    I continue to be confused about this matter because my attorney did not explain to me the ramifications of this guilty plea and I was unjustly rushed into pleading in this manner. She further stated that she pleaded guilty with the promise that I would be sentenced to 18 to life and codefendant which [sic] is the father of defendant whom [sic] is 78, that his sentence would be lighter if the defendant pleas [sic] guilty to second degree murder. At the sentencing hearing on March 27, 1990, the court asked defendant why she had not brought up her confusion and feeling of coercion during the extensive questioning at the time of her guilty plea and allocution. She did not answer the question, but only repeated that she had been confused when she pleaded guilty. Although defendant maintained that she was not guilty in general terms, she at no time retracted any of her admissions or denied committing the specific acts with which she had been charged. The court denied the motion to withdraw her plea, ruling that she had failed to raise sufficient facts or grounds that would require a hearing. It sentenced defendant, and subsequently her father, to the agreed-upon terms of imprisonment. On appeal, defendant claimed that her plea bargain had been linked to that of her father and that she had been coerced into pleading guilty to secure the lighter sentence of one to three years for him. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, holding that a guilty plea will not be held per se coercive, just because the defendant's plea was conditioned upon a codefendant's plea and stating that defendant's plea allocution reveals that she intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily entered her plea of guilty ( People v Fiumefreddo , supra , at 547).