Opinion
2016–03408 Ind. No. 10578/13
05-16-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Kevin KING, appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, and Joyce Adolfsen of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, and Joyce Adolfsen of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Matthew D'Emic, J.), rendered March 1, 2016, convicting him of aggravated harassment in the first degree and aggravated harassment in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
"The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty, as well as the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry, rests largely within the sound discretion of the court and generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion" ( People v. Jemmott, 125 A.D.3d 1005, 1006, 5 N.Y.S.3d 447 ; see CPL 220.60[3] ; People v. Brown, 14 N.Y.3d 113, 116, 897 N.Y.S.2d 674, 924 N.E.2d 782 ; People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482, 485, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802 ). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's application to withdraw his plea of guilty (see People v. Rodriguez, 152 A.D.3d 800, 800, 60 N.Y.S.3d 191 ; People v. Jackson, 87 A.D.3d 552, 553, 928 N.Y.S.2d 58 ; see also People v. Colemanorange, 151 A.D.3d 738, 739, 55 N.Y.S.3d 439 ; People v. Gallo, 73 A.D.3d 804, 804–805, 899 N.Y.S.2d 655 ; People v. Pryor, 11 A.D.3d 565, 566, 782 N.Y.S.2d 803 ; People v. Kessler, 5 A.D.3d 504, 505, 772 N.Y.S.2d 582 ).
Inasmuch as the maximum term of the defendant's sentence expired during the pendency of this appeal, any issues which relate to the length of his sentence are academic (see People v. Velez, 116 A.D.3d 1077, 1077, 983 N.Y.S.2d 873 ; People v. Gonzalez, 113 A.D.3d 792, 793, 978 N.Y.S.2d 870 ; People v. Conklin, 46 A.D.3d 698, 698, 846 N.Y.S.2d 916 ; People v. Ackridge, 31 A.D.3d 654, 655, 818 N.Y.S.2d 294 ). Under these circumstances, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contention that his appeal waiver was invalid (see People v. Bernard, 155 A.D.3d 1059, 1059, 65 N.Y.S.3d 457 ; People v. Thomas, 139 A.D.3d 986, 986, 31 N.Y.S.3d 591 ).
DILLON, J.P., AUSTIN, MILLER and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.