Opinion
2018–04358 Index No. 1568/15
12-11-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Vanallen LOCKWOOD, Appellant.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Yael V. Levy and Monica M.C. Leiter of counsel), for respondent.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Yael V. Levy and Monica M.C. Leiter of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Howard E. Sturim, J.), rendered March 5, 2018, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
"The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty, as well as the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry, rests largely within the sound discretion of the court and generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion" ( People v. DeBenedetto, 120 A.D.3d 1428, 1429, 992 N.Y.S.2d 370 ; see CPL 220.60[3] ; People v. Brown, 14 N.Y.3d 113, 116, 897 N.Y.S.2d 674, 924 N.E.2d 782 ; People v. Jemmott, 125 A.D.3d 1005, 1006, 5 N.Y.S.3d 447 ). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. The defendant's contention that his plea was not voluntary because he was coerced by his trial attorney is belied by the record, which reveals that the defendant acknowledged under oath that no one had threatened or forced him to plead guilty (see People v. Monroe, 174 A.D.3d 649, 650, 104 N.Y.S.3d 696 ; People v. Tavares, 103 A.D.3d 820, 821, 962 N.Y.S.2d 196 ). The record as a whole affirmatively demonstrates that the defendant entered his plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 19, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 ).
As the defendant contends, certain statements made by his trial counsel prior to sentencing, in connection with the defendant's pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, were adverse to the defendant's contention that he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel. Nevertheless, under the particular circumstances of this case, it was unnecessary to assign the defendant new counsel in connection with the motion. The Supreme Court's stated reasons for denying the defendant's motion reflect that the court based its determination upon the record before it and not upon any statements made by the defendant's counsel (see People v. Rogers , 43 A.D.3d 1189, 842 N.Y.S.2d 584 ; People v. Shegog , 32 A.D.3d 1289, 1291, 822 N.Y.S.2d 222 ; People v. Cook , 295 A.D.2d 888, 743 N.Y.S.2d 756 ; see also People v. Greene , 208 A.D.2d 764, 618 N.Y.S.2d 539 ).
MASTRO, J.P., ROMAN, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.