People v Simon-Page

Annotate this Case
People v Simon-page 2017 NY Slip Op 01082 Decided on February 10, 2017 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 10, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
134 KA 13-02208

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

YOSEF SIMON-PAGE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



EDWARD PEKAREK, WELLSVILLE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

BROOKS T. BAKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (JOHN C. TUNNEY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.



Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Peter C. Bradstreet, J.), rendered June 10, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.16 [1]), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his Alford plea. We reject that contention. Here, the record establishes that "defendant's Alford plea was the product of a voluntary and rational choice, and the record before the court contains strong evidence of actual guilt' " (People v Smith, 26 AD3d 746, 747, lv denied 7 NY3d 763). Contrary to defendant's further contention, there is no dispute that the crime occurred in Steuben County, and nothing in the plea colloquy cast doubt on the State's power to prosecute the case (cf. People v Harvey, 124 AD3d 1393, 1394).

Entered: February 10, 2017

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.