Opinion
05-16-2024
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lawrence ELLIOT, Defendant–Appellant.
Caprice R. Jenerson, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Sean Nuttall of counsel), for appellant. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Alex King of counsel), for respondent.
Caprice R. Jenerson, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Sean Nuttall of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Alex King of counsel), for respondent. Webber, J.P., Kern, Shulman, Rodriguez, Pitt–Burke, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa C. Jackson, J.), entered on or about June 21, 2018, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate a judgment rendered July 10, 2013, as amended July 29, 2013, unanimously affirmed.
A court may exercise its discretion to summarily deny a motion (see People v. Jones, 24 N.Y.3d 623, 635, 2 N.Y.S.3d 815, 26 N.E.3d 754 [2014]) when, among other things, the papers "do not contain sworn allegations substantiating or tending to substantiate all the essential facts" (CPL 440.30[4][b]), or an essential allegation is "made solely by the defendant and is unsupported by any other affidavit or evidence, and … there is no reasonable possibility that such allegation is true" (CPL 440.30[4][d]). The court properly denied, without a hearing, defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment of conviction in which he claimed that his plea was unknowing and involuntary because he was not apprised of the possibility of civil confinement under the Sex Offender Management Treatment Act (SOMTA) (see People v. Jones, 24 N.Y.3d at 635, 2 N.Y.S.3d 815, 26 N.E.3d 754; People v. Holguin, 216 A.D.3d 436, 188 N.Y.S.3d 49 [1st Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 935, 194 N.Y.S.3d 758, 215 N.E.3d 1199 [2023]). Defendant did not include with his moving papers sworn allegations that tended to substantiate his assertions that the prospect of SOMTA confinement was sufficiently realistic and that he would have rejected the plea bargain had he been aware of SOMTA (see CPL 440.30[4][b]; People v. Harnett, 16 N.Y.3d 200, 207, 920 N.Y.S.2d 246, 945 N.E.2d 439 [2011]). Rather, defendant’s claim that he would be subject to SOMTA confinement were based on his statements that were self-serving and speculative (see CPL 440.30[4][d]).