Opinion
No. 2021-04213 Ind. No. 1759/19
11-23-2022
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Malik N. Roberts, appellant.
Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, NY, for appellant. Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Christopher Turk and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.
Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, NY, for appellant.
Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Christopher Turk and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Timothy P. Mazzei, J.), rendered May 25, 2021, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was charged by indictment with one count of murder in the second degree. On March 2, 2021, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge. The defendant thereafter moved pursuant to CPL 220.60 to withdraw his plea of guilty. The County Court denied the defendant's motion without a hearing. The defendant was thereafter sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. The defendant appeals.
"A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court, and generally the court's determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of the court's discretion" (People v Richards, 186 A.D.3d 1411, 1412; see CPL 220.60[3]; People v Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482, 485; People v Boria, 157 A.D.3d 811, 811). "Generally, a plea of guilty may not be withdrawn absent some evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in its inducement" (People v Richards, 186 A.D.3d at 1412 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Boria, 157 A.D.3d at 811; People v Smith, 54 A.D.3d 879, 880). "'Only in rare instances will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing upon a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty'" (People v Tomlinson, 178 A.D.3d 967, 967, quoting People v Smith, 54 A.D.3d at 880; see People v Meyn, 193 A.D.3d 1080, 1081).
Here, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. Reviewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v Goode-Ford, 205 A.D.3d 1051, 1051; People v Tomlinson, 178 A.D.3d at 968). The defendant's unsupported postplea assertions that he was innocent and was coerced into entering a plea of guilty contradicted the admissions made under oath at his plea allocution and were insufficient to warrant a hearing or further inquiry by the court (see People v Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55, 56; People v Butler, 193 A.D.3d 876, 876; People v Walters, 183 A.D.3d 765, 766; People v Lopez-Hilario, 178 A.D.3d 1078, 1078-1079).
The defendant's contention that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and thus, constitutes a "mixed claim" of ineffective assistance (People v Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108, 1109; see People v Evans, 16 N.Y.3d 571, 575 n 2). Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety, and we decline to review the claim on this direct appeal (see People v Yancey, 204 A.D.3d 1044, 1045; People v Corines, 204 A.D.3d 827, 830).
IANNACCI, J.P., MILLER, CHRISTOPHER and WARHIT, JJ., concur.