Opinion
2016-12950, Ind. No. 2556-14.
10-25-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Kevin R. RODRIGUEZ, appellant.
Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Elizabeth Miller of counsel), for respondent.
Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Elizabeth Miller of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), rendered October 19, 2016, convicting him of conspiracy in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court, and generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see CPL 220.60[3] ; People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482, 485, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802 ; People v. Smith, 148 A.D.3d 939, 939, 49 N.Y.S.3d 501 ). "Generally, a plea of guilty may not be withdrawn absent some evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in its inducement" ( People v. Rodriguez, 142 A.D.3d 1189, 1190, 38 N.Y.S.3d 224 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). When a defendant moves to withdraw a plea of guilty, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rests largely in the discretion of the court, and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances (see People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 ; People v. Street, 144 A.D.3d 711, 712, 39 N.Y.S.3d 824 ). Here, the defendant's plea of guilty was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v. Smith, 148 A.D.3d at 939, 49 N.Y.S.3d 501). The defendant's postplea assertions that he was innocent contradicted the admissions made under oath at his plea allocution, and were insufficient to warrant a hearing, vacatur of his plea, or further inquiry by the court (see People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d at 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 ; People v. Smith, 148 A.D.3d at 939, 49 N.Y.S.3d 501; People v. Haywood, 122 A.D.3d 769, 769, 996 N.Y.S.2d 137 ).
The defendant's contention that his counsel's ineffectiveness affected the voluntariness of his plea is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and thus constitutes a "mixed claim" of ineffective assistance ( People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ). In this case, it is not evident from the matter appearing on the record that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Thompson, 150 A.D.3d 1156, 1157, 52 N.Y.S.3d 675 ; People v. Leverich, 139 A.D.3d 756, 29 N.Y.S.3d 187 ). Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety (see People v. Leverich, 139 A.D.3d at 757, 29 N.Y.S.3d 187; People v. Adamson, 131 A.D.3d 701, 703, 15 N.Y.S.3d 452 ; People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d at 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ).