People v Lindsay
2015 NY Slip Op 09516 [134 AD3d 1452]
December 23, 2015
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2015


[*1]
 The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vJames L. Lindsay, III, Appellant.

Erickson Webb Scolton & Hajdu, Lakewood (Lyle T. Hajdu of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.

David W. Foley, District Attorney, Mayville (Joseph M. Calimeri of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Chautauqua County Court (John L. LaMancuso,A.J.), rendered June 13, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea ofguilty, of, inter alia, reckless endangerment in the first degree and driving whileintoxicated, a misdemeanor (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea ofguilty of, inter alia, reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law§ 120.25) and two counts of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and TrafficLaw § 1192 [3]). We reject defendant's contention that County Court erredin denying his pro se motion to withdraw his plea without conducting an adequateinquiry. The record establishes that the court afforded defendant the requisite "reasonableopportunity to present his contentions" (People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927[1974]; see People vCarter-Doucette, 124 AD3d 1323, 1324 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 988[2015]), and properly denied the motion inasmuch as defendant's "claims wereconclusory and unsubstantiated" (People v Temple, 89 AD3d 644, 644 [2011], lvdenied 19 NY3d 968 [2012]). We also reject defendant's contention that the courterred in failing to assign him new counsel before making that determination. "[T]herecord belies defendant's contention that defense counsel took a position adverse to thatof defendant in his pro se motion to withdraw the plea, and thus there was no reason forthe court to assign new counsel" (People v Rossborough, 105 AD3d 1332, 1333 [2013],lv denied 21 NY3d 1045 [2013]).

Finally, we conclude that defendant's sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Carni, Valentino and DeJoseph, JJ.


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.