Opinion
32 14–02203
03-16-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Talyn D. WILLIAMS, Defendant–Appellant.
BETH A. RATCHFORD, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DANIEL GROSS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
BETH A. RATCHFORD, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DANIEL GROSS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, DEJOSEPH, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree ( Penal Law § 160.10 [1 ] ). Initially, we note that, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid, as defendant contends, his further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel "does not survive his plea ... inasmuch as defendant failed to demonstrate that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of [defense counsel's] allegedly poor performance" ( People v. Lucieer, 107 A.D.3d 1611, 1612, 967 N.Y.S.2d 575 [4th Dept. 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Although defendant's further contention that his plea was not otherwise voluntary survives a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Guantero, 100 A.D.3d 1386, 1387, 953 N.Y.S.2d 438 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 1004, 971 N.Y.S.2d 256, 993 N.E.2d 1278 [2013] ), we reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in denying his pro se motion to withdraw his plea on that ground without conducting a hearing. The record establishes that the court "conducted a sufficient inquiry before denying defendant's [motion] to withdraw his plea" ( People v. Moore, 39 A.D.3d 1199, 1200, 834 N.Y.S.2d 606 [4th Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 867, 840 N.Y.S.2d 897, 872 N.E.2d 1203 [2007] ), and there is no evidence of innocence, fraud or mistake in inducing the plea (see People v. Taylor, 59 A.D.3d 973, 973–974, 872 N.Y.S.2d 332 [4th Dept. 2009], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 921, 884 N.Y.S.2d 702, 912 N.E.2d 1083 [2009] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.