Opinion
42 KA 17–01532
01-31-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Resheena JENKINS, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
THEODORE W. STENUF, MINOA, FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY W. OASTLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
THEODORE W. STENUF, MINOA, FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY W. OASTLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of riot in the first degree ( Penal Law § 240.06[1] ) and, in appeal No. 2, she appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of assault in the second degree (§ 120.05[3] ). Both pleas were taken during one plea proceeding. We reject defendant's contention in both appeals that County Court erred in denying her motion to withdraw her guilty pleas. Initially, we agree with defendant that her contention that she did not enter the pleas knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily survives the waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Jackson , 163 A.D.3d 1273, 1274, 80 N.Y.S.3d 735 [3d Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1065, 89 N.Y.S.3d 119, 113 N.E.3d 953 [2018] ; People v. Bibbs , 147 A.D.3d 1301, 1301–1302, 47 N.Y.S.3d 175 [4th Dept. 2017] ; People v. Fuller , 124 A.D.3d 1394, 1394–1395, 998 N.Y.S.2d 554 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 989, 10 N.Y.S.3d 532, 32 N.E.3d 969 [2015] ). We conclude, however, that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion (see Bibbs , 147 A.D.3d at 1301–1302, 47 N.Y.S.3d 175 ; People v. Dale , 142 A.D.3d 1287, 1289, 38 N.Y.S.3d 333 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1144, 52 N.Y.S.3d 296, 74 N.E.3d 681 [2017] ). Defendant's contention that she did not understand the plea proceeding and did not understand that she had other options aside from pleading guilty are belied by her statements during the plea proceeding (see People v. Gast , 114 A.D.3d 1270, 1271, 980 N.Y.S.2d 221 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 1198, 986 N.Y.S.2d 419, 9 N.E.3d 914 [2014] ; People v. Thomas , 72 A.D.3d 1483, 1484, 899 N.Y.S.2d 761 [4th Dept. 2010] ).
Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion without a hearing. "When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances ... [O]ften[,] a limited interrogation by the court will suffice" ( People v. Manor , 27 N.Y.3d 1012, 1013–1014, 35 N.Y.S.3d 272, 54 N.E.3d 1143 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Walker , 114 A.D.3d 1257, 1258, 980 N.Y.S.2d 216 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 1044, 993 N.Y.S.2d 257, 17 N.E.3d 512 [2014] ). Here, the court allowed defendant an opportunity to present her contentions, and the court was able to make an informed determination without holding a hearing (see People v. Zimmerman , 100 A.D.3d 1360, 1362, 953 N.Y.S.2d 427 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 1015, 960 N.Y.S.2d 359, 984 N.E.2d 334 [2013] ; People v. Buske , 87 A.D.3d 1354, 1355, 930 N.Y.S.2d 155 [4th Dept. 2011], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 882, 939 N.Y.S.2d 751, 963 N.E.2d 128 [2012] ).