People v John
2013 NY Slip Op 04357 [107 AD3d 824]
June 12, 2013
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 31, 2013


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Daquan John, Appellant.

[*1]Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L.Mandel, and Marie John-Drigo of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Firetog, J.), rendered January 27, 2012, convicting him of murder in the second degreeand assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised itsdiscretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see CPL 220.60[3]). There was no proof that the defendant's plea was involuntarily or unintelligentlyentered, and the defendant's assertion that he did not understand the proceedings wascontradicted by both the plea minutes and the Supreme Court's recollection of the pleaproceedings (see People vZabriskie, 105 AD3d 1068 [2013]; People v Tepley, 105 AD3d 977 [2013]; People v Ramos, 77 AD3d773, 774 [2010]; People vWoodhouse, 65 AD3d 1267, 1267 [2009]; People v Williams, 183AD2d 866, 866 [1992]). Furthermore, the defendant was afforded an adequateopportunity to present his contentions (see People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520,525-526 [1978]; People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]), and since therewas no legitimate question as to the voluntariness of his plea, the Supreme Courtprovidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion without conductingan evidentiary hearing (seePeople v Brown, 14 NY3d 113, 116 [2010]; People v Jacob, 94 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2012]; People v Duncan, 78 AD3d1193, 1194 [2010]).

The defendant's contention that his plea should be vacated based on his claim ofineffective assistance of counsel is predicated, at least in part, on "matters that are outsidethe record" (People vMaxwell, 89 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011]). Since it is not evident from the matterappearing on the record that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance ofcounsel, "[t]he claim should be raised in a postconviction application under CPL article440, where the basis of the claim may be fully developed" (People v Haffiz, 19 NY3d883, 885 [2012]). Rivera, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.