People v. Cecilio
Opinion of the Court
—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered May 21, 1993, convicting defen
We reject defendant’s contention that the court violated his constitutional right to counsel by refusing to allow him a fourth opportunity to confer with his counsel before granting his motion to vacate his initial guilty plea (see, People v Enrique, 165 AD2d 13, 16-17, affd 80 NY2d 869). Nor do we find that the court erred by granting defendant precisely what he asked for since defendant’s claim of confusion constitutes a sufficient basis upon which the court may grant vacatur (see, People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926). Further, we reject defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed under his second plea agreement, which exceeded the initial offer and the possible minimum by only one year, constitutes an improper or unduly harsh punishment for having withdrawn his initial plea or is excessive under the circumstances here. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.