People v. Blim
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Andrew D. Blim, Appellant
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
This CPL 440.10 motion was brought on after defendant’s violation of his original sentence to probation had resulted in the substitution of a prison term. For the first time defendant then claimed that he was denied the right to counsel when he confessed and, thereafter, when he pleaded guilty (see People v Hannigan, 7 NY2d 317, 318 ). However, whatever merits his appeal in these regards could possess, they rest on a version of the facts rejected by the County Court after a hearing on the motion and then again by the Appellate Division. For instance, defendant’s on-the-record responses to the inquiries of the County Judge at the time of the plea included ones that he understood the consequences of the plea, that he had committed the acts which formed the basis for the crimes to which they were directed and that he was then being advised by competent counsel of his choice (People v Seaton, 19 NY2d 404, 406 ). And, since our own examination of the record reveals factual support for the findings below, they are beyond our power of review (People v Gruttola, 43 NY2d 116, 122 ).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.