Opinion
95 KA 19-01449
03-11-2022
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dawanza ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant.
JEFFREY WICKS, PLLC, ROCHESTER (JEFFREY WICKS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
JEFFREY WICKS, PLLC, ROCHESTER (JEFFREY WICKS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon an Alford plea of rape in the first degree ( Penal Law § 130.35 [1] ) and rape in the third degree (§ 130.25 [3]), defendant contends that Supreme Court abused its discretion in summarily denying his request to withdraw his plea. We reject that contention.
"[P]ermission to withdraw a guilty plea rests solely within the court's discretion ..., and refusal to permit withdrawal does not constitute an abuse of that discretion unless there is some evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in inducing the plea ... Furthermore, a court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea where the defendant's allegations in support of the motion are belied by the defendant's statements during the plea proceeding" ( People v. Crosby , 195 A.D.3d 1602, 1603, 149 N.Y.S.3d 729 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1026, 153 N.Y.S.3d 436, 175 N.E.3d 462 [2021] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Lewicki , 118 A.D.3d 1328, 1329, 987 N.Y.S.2d 755 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 1064, 994 N.Y.S.2d 323, 18 N.E.3d 1144 [2014]).
Here, both defense counsel and the court reviewed the terms of the plea offer with defendant in detail, including the period of postrelease supervision, and "defendant repeatedly confirmed that he understood" them ( Lewicki , 118 A.D.3d at 1329, 987 N.Y.S.2d 755 ; see People v. Smith , 123 A.D.3d 950, 950-951, 999 N.Y.S.2d 459 [2d Dept. 2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 953, 7 N.Y.S.3d 282, 30 N.E.3d 173 [2015] ; People v. Johnson , 97 A.D.3d 695, 696, 948 N.Y.S.2d 120 [2d Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 1026, 953 N.Y.S.2d 560, 978 N.E.2d 112 [2012] ; cf. People v. Walton , 177 A.D.3d 786, 787, 110 N.Y.S.3d 311 [2d Dept. 2019] ). Moreover, "[w]here a sentencing court keeps the promises it made at the time it accepted a plea of guilty, a defendant should not be permitted to withdraw his [or her] plea on the sole ground that he [or she] misinterpreted the agreement. Compliance with a plea bargain is to be tested against an objective reading of the bargain, and not against a defendant's subjective interpretation thereof" ( People v. Cataldo , 39 N.Y.2d 578, 580, 384 N.Y.S.2d 763, 349 N.E.2d 863 [1976] ; see People v. Guillory , 81 A.D.3d 1394, 1395, 917 N.Y.S.2d 590 [4th Dept. 2011], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 895, 926 N.Y.S.2d 31, 949 N.E.2d 979 [2011]).
Defendant additionally contends that the court erred in failing to hold a hearing on his request to withdraw his plea. We reject that contention as well. It is well settled that, "in considering a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, a hearing is required only in rare instances" ( People v. Osborn , 198 A.D.3d 1363, 1364, 152 N.Y.S.3d 660 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied ––– NY3d –––– [2022]), and here defendant "was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his contentions such that the court was able to make an informed determination" ( id. ; see also People v. Stafford , 195 A.D.3d 1466, 1467, 145 N.Y.S.3d 506 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1029, 153 N.Y.S.3d 409, 175 N.E.3d 434 [2021] ; see generally People v. Tinsley , 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 [1974] ).