Opinion
200 KA 17-01373
03-18-2022
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. MONTIEZ L. WEEMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MARK D. FUNK, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (CAROLYN WALTHER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
MARK D. FUNK, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (CAROLYN WALTHER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John L. DeMarco, J.), rendered April 5, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant upon a plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20), we reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in denying without an evidentiary hearing his pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. "Only in the rare instance will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing; often a limited interrogation by the court will suffice. The defendant should be afforded [a] reasonable opportunity to present his [or her] contentions and the court should be enabled to make an informed determination" (People v Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927 [1974]; see People v Strasser, 83 A.D.3d 1411, 1411 [4th Dept 2011]). Here, the record establishes that defendant was afforded such an opportunity and that the court was able to make an informed determination of the motion (see People v Soriano, 178 A.D.3d 1376, 1377 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1163 [2020]). Contrary to defendant's related contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to substitute new counsel (see People v Weinstock, 129 A.D.3d 1663, 1664 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1012 [2015]).