Opinion
11-02-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Samuel MALDONADO, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY, for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Keith Dolan, and Arieh Schulman of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY, for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Keith Dolan, and Arieh Schulman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Foley, J.), rendered December 21, 2011, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 780, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797 ; People v. McVay, 140 A.D.3d 1090, 1090, 33 N.Y.S.3d 742 ; People v. Dazzo, 92 A.D.3d 796, 796, 938 N.Y.S.2d 446 ). “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” (People v. Brown, 14 N.Y.3d 113, 116, 897 N.Y.S.2d 674, 924 N.E.2d 782, quoting People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 ; see People v. McVay, 140 A.D.3d at 1090, 33 N.Y.S.3d 742).
Here, the record supports the Supreme Court's determination that the defendant's plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 ; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 16–17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 ; People v. McVay, 140 A.D.3d at 1090, 33 N.Y.S.3d 742; People v. Dazzo, 92 A.D.3d at 796, 938 N.Y.S.2d 446 ). The defendant's post-plea assertions regarding his innocence contradicted the admissions made under oath at his plea allocution and did not call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v. Martinez, 129 A.D.3d 1106, 1107, 11 N.Y.S.3d 686 ; People v. Pollidore, 123 A.D.3d 1058, 1059, 997 N.Y.S.2d 752 ; People v. Appling, 94 A.D.3d 1135, 1136, 942 N.Y.S.2d 617 ). These statements were insufficient to warrant vacatur of his plea or obligate the court to conduct any further inquiry (see CPL 220.60[3] ); (People v. Upson, 134 A.D.3d 1058, 1058–1059, 21 N.Y.S.3d 688 ; People v. Dazzo, 92 A.D.3d at 796–797, 938 N.Y.S.2d 446 ).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. McVay, 140 A.D.3d at 1090, 33 N.Y.S.3d 742; People v. McGuire, 122 A.D.3d 947, 948, 997 N.Y.S.2d 468 ). The record as a whole demonstrates that he received effective assistance of counsel under both the federal and state constitutional standards (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d at 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 )
DILLON, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS–RADIX and DUFFY, JJ., concur.