Opinion
July 25, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J., Lakritz, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
At his plea allocution, the defendant related in detail how, accompanied by a codefendant, and with intent to kill, he had shot two homeless crack addicts in the head at close range with his .38 caliber pistol on the morning of January 18, 1990, as they sat in an abandoned van in a junk yard at 154th Street in Queens County. The defendant further admitted that on the evening of January 17, 1990, on 150th Street in Queens County, with the intent to cause the death of Linda Wallace, he had shot Wallace in the stomach with his .38 caliber pistol from about four feet away.
The defendant did not effectively waive his right to appeal. Although he apparently signed a waiver form in open court at the conclusion of his plea allocution, the court made no record inquiry regarding whether the defendant understood the implications of the waiver, whether he knew that the waiver was part of the plea bargain, and whether he in fact voluntarily agreed to it (see, People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 283; People v. Ramos, 152 A.D.2d 209).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was arrested without probable cause, so that the subsequently-acquired evidence against him should have been suppressed. The victim of the January 17th shooting, who knew the defendant as a neighborhood drug dealer from whom she had purchased narcotics in the past, gave a detailed description of him to the police, and further identified him as the younger brother of "Born" McCaskell, whose photograph she was shown in a photographic array (see, e.g., People v. Anderson, 146 A.D.2d 638; People v. Gonzalez, 138 A.D.2d 622). The court therefore properly determined that the defendant's arrest was amply supported by probable cause (see, People v. Rodriguez, 168 A.D.2d 520, 521-522).
The court further properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas without a hearing, after assigning him new counsel and giving him a full opportunity to present his contentions (CPL 220.60; People v Mercedes, 171 A.D.2d 1044; People v. Melendez, 135 A.D.2d 660; People v. Stubbs, 110 A.D.2d 725; People v. Grady, 110 A.D.2d 780). Mere conclusory allegations of innocence and coercion are insufficient to warrant a hearing where the record discloses that the defendant has freely and fully admitted the essential facts constituting the crimes (see, People v. Price, 140 A.D.2d 927; People v. Pettiford, 133 A.D.2d 856).
The defendant received the sentences that he bargained for (People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816), and the concurrent terms of imprisonment imposed are not excessive (see, People v. Perez, 150 A.D.2d 395; People v. Granger, 82 A.D.2d 643, 644). Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.