Sharbu Redd was charged with the criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
Although Redd initially conceded guilt, he later sought to withdraw that plea claiming he was innocent of the crimes charged, had misunderstood the terms of his plea, and that he'd had ineffective assistance of counsel.
After the New York County Supreme Court convicted Redd and sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 8 years and 5 years, respectively, he appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department.
Since Redd's request to withdraw his plea was "vague and conclusory," wasn't in proper form or timely made, the AD1 denied him relief -- particularity in view of the "sufficient opportunity" he had been given to prepare same. Furthermore, the trial court was found to have correctly relied on the plea colloquy, which conflicted with Redd's subsequent claims.
Was the AD1 seeing Redd?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v Redd