Opinion
2018–09282 Ind. No. 504/18
12-18-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Quanne TOMLINSON, Appellant.
Patrick Michael Megaro, Forest Hills, N.Y., for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Jared A. Chester of counsel; Valeriia Golubchik on the brief), for respondent.
Patrick Michael Megaro, Forest Hills, N.Y., for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Jared A. Chester of counsel; Valeriia Golubchik on the brief), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Meryl J. Berkowitz, J.), rendered July 25, 2018, convicting him of criminal contempt in the second 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 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. Caruso, 88 A.D.3d 809, 809, 930 N.Y.S.2d 668 ). Such a motion "must be premised upon some evidence of possible innocence or of fraud, mistake, coercion or involuntariness in the taking of the plea" ( People v. De Jesus, 199 A.D.2d 529, 530, 606 N.Y.S.2d 255 ). "Only in rare instances will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing upon a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty" ( People v. Smith, 54 A.D.3d 879, 880, 863 N.Y.S.2d 818 ; see CPL 220.60[3] ; People v. Caruso, 88 A.D.3d at 809, 930 N.Y.S.2d 668 ). "[W]hen a motion to withdraw a plea is patently insufficient on its face, a court may simply deny the motion without making any inquiry" ( People v. Mitchell, 21 N.Y.3d 964, 967, 970 N.Y.S.2d 919, 993 N.E.2d 405 ). Here, the record demonstrates that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v. Boria, 157 A.D.3d 811, 812, 69 N.Y.S.3d 3 ). Moreover, because the defendant's conclusory claim of possible innocence was patently insufficient on its face, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in summarily denying his motion to withdraw his plea (see People v. Mitchell, 21 N.Y.3d at 967, 970 N.Y.S.2d 919, 993 N.E.2d 405 ; People v. Lopez–Perez, 128 A.D.3d 1093, 8 N.Y.S.3d 600 ).
BALKIN, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.