Court Opinion

ID: 9758132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:12:43.814937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:47.313422
License: Public Domain

McEWEN, Judge,
dissenting:
The majority after careful study concludes that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow appellant to withdraw his guilty plea based upon a finding that appellant had “supported his request to withdraw his guilty plea by asserting his innocence.” Majority Opinion at pg. 122. I, however, do not find “fair and just” reason to permit appellant to withdraw his plea and, therefore, would affirm the judgment of sentence.
*121Appellant entered a counseled plea of guilty to the offense of robbery before the distinguished Judge Forrest G. Schaeffer on November 9, 1981. Following an extensive colloquy, the court questioned appellant as follows: “You admit that on November 26, 1980, you were with a group acting together with the purpose of taking a wallet from Mr. Harbach and that in so doing serious bodily injury was inflicted upon him?” Appellant, under oath, responded, “Yes, sir.” Later that afternoon, the court reconvened the guilty plea proceedings and questioned appellant as follows: “I just wanted to advise you further, Mr. Ortiz, that — or ask you, when you entered a guilty plea this morning to charge of robbery, did anybody threaten you or force you or in any way persuade you to plead guilty other than the plea bargain that was entered? Appellant responded: “No, sir. I pleaded guilty on my own, sir.” Appellant then waited approximately thirty minutes, at the request of the court, for his counsel to arrive, and once again the court inquired into the voluntariness of appellant’s plea:
THE COURT: Mr. Ortiz, your counsel is here, and I just wanted to reiterate. This morning you entered a guilty plea and I gave you a colloquy. I’m not certain that I mentioned this morning or asked you whether or not the guilty plea was brought about by anybody threatening or forcing you or persuading you to plead guilty by any other means than the plea bargain.
THE DEFENDANT: I pleaded guilty on my own.
THE COURT: On your own?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And therefore, the guilty plea you entered you’re saying was of your own free will?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Nobody promised you or threatened you? THE DEFENDANT: No.
MR. CAMMARANO: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Counsel for appellant, more than four months later, on March 18, 1982, filed a petition seeking leave for appellant *122to withdraw his guilty plea. Counsel alleged therein, inter alia, that “[the] Petitioner alleges his innocence and seeks to exercise his right to a trial by jury of his peers.” A hearing on the petition was held on June 10, 1982, and appellant testified that he could not recall signing the plea agreement or any of the details of the hearing at which he tendered his guilty plea as he was under the influence of drugs at the time.1 At no time during the hearing did *123appellant suggest to the court that he was innocent of the offense to which he had entered the plea of guilty. Rather, appellant sought to establish at the hearing that his plea of guilty was involuntary due to his use of drugs during the relevant period. The trial court, which had observed and questioned appellant during the morning and afternoon of December 9, 1981, found appellant’s subsequent testimony, to the effect that due to drug intoxication he was unaware of his acts on December 9, 1981, to be incredible. The record fully supports this conclusion. Moreover, while the petition filed by counsel contained a bare averment of innocence, appellant apparently abandoned that ground for withdrawal of his plea, as he never suggested to the court, either at the hearing or in his subsequent pro se petition seeking withdrawal of his plea, that he was, in fact, innocent.
I can discern no abuse of discretion on the part of the learned trial court judge who concluded that appellant had failed to establish a “fair and just” reason for withdrawal of his guilty plea. I would, therefore, affirm the judgment of sentence.

. Appellant, while under oath, provided the following assurances to the court at the time of his guilty plea:
THE COURT: [d]o you agree to the plea bargain as it has been spelled out?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Now, Mr. Ortiz, have you had any alcoholic beverages to drink or taken any medicine or drugs within the last 48 hours? THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: Have you drunk anything? Understand what I just asked you?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And you said no?
THE DEFENDANT: Um-hum.
THE COURT: Have you ever been treated for any mental or emotional illness.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: You have?
THE DEFENDANT: (nodding head vertically)
THE COURT: Could you tell me what the nature of the treatment was and when it occurred?
THE DEFENDANT: Mentally ill up in prison.
THE COURT: In prison?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes. Six months ago.
THE COURT: Six months ago? Are you taking any medication at the present time?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
THE COURT: Does this problem that you had six months ago effect your ability to understand what I’m saying to you now?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
MR. CAMMARANO: Your Honor, if I might add, I’ve had extensive dealings with Mr. Ortiz, and I’m quite convinced he understands what’s going on at this point.
THE COURT: Is there any question about his legal capacity at the time this incident occurred?
MR. CAMMARANO: None, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Ortiz, how old are you?
THE DEFENDANT: Twenty-five.
THE COURT: How far did you go in school?
THE DEFENDANT: Sophomore.
THE COURT: Where did you go?
THE DEFENDANT: John Jay, Brooklyn, New York.
*123THE COURT: Have you had any formal education since your sophomore year in high school?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: What was that?
THE DEFENDANT: At RACC. I was attending there.
THE COURT: What courses did you take at RACC?
THE DEFENDANT: G.E.D. courses and business accounting.
THE COURT: Did you get your G.E.D. degree?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: Have you been employed? Did you have a job?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: What kind of work did you do?
THE DEFENDANT: I did all kinds of jobs. All kind of work, sir.
THE COURT: Manual labor jobs?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, my last job was supervisor.
THE COURT: Where was it?
THE DEFENDANT: City Hall.
THE COURT: Now, Mr. Ortiz, did you have any questions about anything I either asked you or told you up to this time?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
THE COURT: You still desire to plead guilty to the charge of robbery?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.