Opinion
2019–06110, 2019–06111, (Ind. 17–00878) S.C.I. No. 18–00178
05-05-2021
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Clint EDWARDS, appellant.
Thomas R. Villecco, Jericho, NY, for appellant. Miriam E. Rocah, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (William C. Milaccio of counsel), for respondent.
Thomas R. Villecco, Jericho, NY, for appellant.
Miriam E. Rocah, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (William C. Milaccio of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Susan Cacace, J.), both rendered April 23, 2019, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the second degree under Indictment No. 17–00878, and attempted assault in the second degree under S.C.I. No. 18–00178, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
"The decision as to whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court and generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion" ( People v. Jacob, 94 A.D.3d 1142, 1143, 942 N.Y.S.2d 627 ; see CPL 220.60[3] ; People v. Fisher, 28 N.Y.3d 717, 721, 49 N.Y.S.3d 344, 71 N.E.3d 932 ; People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482, 485, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802 ; People v. Hollmond, 191 A.D.3d 120, 136, 135 N.Y.S.3d 449 ). Such a motion "must be premised upon some evidence of possible innocence or of fraud, mistake, coercion or involuntariness in the taking of the plea" ( People v. De Jesus, 199 A.D.2d 529, 530, 606 N.Y.S.2d 255 ; see People v. Hollmond, 191 A.D.3d at 136, 135 N.Y.S.3d 449 ; People v. Haffiz, 77 A.D.3d 767, 768, 909 N.Y.S.2d 490, affd 19 N.Y.3d 883, 951 N.Y.S.2d 690, 976 N.E.2d 216 ; People v. Smith, 54 A.D.3d 879, 880, 863 N.Y.S.2d 818 ). "Only in rare instances will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing upon a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty" ( People v. Smith, 54 A.D.3d at 880, 863 N.Y.S.2d 818 ; see CPL 220.60[3] ). "[W]hen a motion to withdraw a plea is patently insufficient on its face, a court may simply deny the motion without making any inquiry" ( People v. Mitchell, 21 N.Y.3d 964, 967, 970 N.Y.S.2d 919, 993 N.E.2d 405 ).
Here, the record demonstrates that the defendant's pleas of guilty were knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v. Sougou, 26 N.Y.3d 1052, 1055, 23 N.Y.S.3d 121, 44 N.E.3d 196 ; People v. Torres, 192 A.D.3d 831, 143 N.Y.S.3d 102 ). Moreover, because the defendant's conclusory claims of coercion and ineffective assistance of counsel were patently insufficient on their face, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in summarily denying his motion to withdraw his pleas (see People v. Mitchell, 21 N.Y.3d at 967, 970 N.Y.S.2d 919, 993 N.E.2d 405 ; People v. Tomlinson, 178 A.D.3d 967, 968, 112 N.Y.S.3d 522 ; People v. Scott, 158 A.D.3d 729, 730, 68 N.Y.S.3d 736 ; People v. Lopez–Perez, 128 A.D.3d 1093, 1093, 8 N.Y.S.3d 600 ; People v. McGuire, 122 A.D.3d 947, 948, 997 N.Y.S.2d 468 ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., AUSTIN, LASALLE and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.