Opinion
11-25-2015
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Justin LAWLESS, appellant.
Richard M. Langone, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant. Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Donald Berk of counsel; Sarabeth Rangiah on the brief), for respondent.
Richard M. Langone, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.
Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Donald Berk of counsel; Sarabeth Rangiah on the brief), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Prager, J.), rendered March 6, 2014, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The decision whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a 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 (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. Smith, 123 A.D.3d 950, 999 N.Y.S.2d 459). Here, the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's two motions to withdraw his plea of guilty, without a hearing (see People v. Smith, 123 A.D.3d 950, 999 N.Y.S.2d 459; People v. DeBenedetto, 120 A.D.3d 1428, 1429, 992 N.Y.S.2d 370). The record establishes that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the waiver of indictment was valid, as his waiver of indictment and his prosecution by superior court information satisfied all of the requirements of the New York Constitution and CPL article 195 (see N.Y. Const., art. I, § 6; CPL 195.10, 195.20; People v. Pierce, 14 N.Y.3d 564, 567–568, 904 N.Y.S.2d 255, 930 N.E.2d 176; People v. Gramola, 102 A.D.3d 810, 957 N.Y.S.2d 893). Furthermore, the defendant did not demonstrate that the prosecutor made an affirmative misrepresentation about the strength of the People's case, and any misapprehension by the defendant as to the nature of the evidence against him was not a sufficient ground to vacate his plea (see People v. Jones, 44 N.Y.2d 76, 80–83, 404 N.Y.S.2d 85, 375 N.E.2d 41; People v. Smith, 105 A.D.3d 1065, 1066, 963 N.Y.S.2d 402).
LEVENTHAL, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS–RADIX and BARROS, JJ., concur.