| People v Saunders |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03202 [127 AD3d 1420] |
| April 16, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Edgar G. Saunders Sr., Appellant. |
Eugene P. Grimmick, Troy, for appellant.
Joel E. Abelove, District Attorney, Troy (Vincent J. O'Neill of counsel), forrespondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Ceresia,J.), rendered March 28, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimeof attempted burglary in the second degree.
In satisfaction of a five-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to a reducedcharge of attempted burglary in the second degree and waived his right to appeal.Thereafter, pursuant to CPL 220.60 (3), defendant moved to withdraw his plea. CountyCourt denied the motion without a hearing and sentenced defendant, in accordance withthe plea agreement, to 4
County Court properly denied defendant's motion without a hearing. A trial court"has broad discretion in its fact-finding inquiry on [a] motion [to withdraw a plea] andoften a limited interrogation by the court will suffice"; it is "[o]nly in the rare instance[that] a defendant [is] [*2]entitled to an evidentiaryhearing" (People v Mitchell,21 NY3d 964, 966-967 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Brown, 14 NY3d113, 116 [2010]). Moreover, "such motions generally will not be granted absentevidence of fraud, innocence or mistake in the inducement" (People v McKinney, 122AD3d 1083, 1084 [2014]; see People v Wilson, 101 AD3d 1248, 1249 [2012]).
Defendant argues that his plea to attempted burglary in the second degree wasfraudulently induced because it was based upon the People's representation that thebuilding was a dwelling, while subsequent evidence—unsworn letters fromdefendant's paramour and another witness indicating that the building appeared to bevacant and unlivable—raised questions regarding whether the building was, infact, suitable for occupancy (seegenerally People v DeFreitas, 116 AD3d 1078, 1083 [2014], lv denied24 NY3d 960 [2014]). We cannot agree.
The letters submitted in connection with the motion were contradicted by defendant'sadmission during the plea allocution that he was aware that a person had been living inthe building's third floor apartment, which contained that individual's food and clothing(see People v Little, 92AD3d 1036, 1037 [2012]). Further, in view of defendant's unequivocal statement onthe record that he did not have permission to go into the building, his additionalunexplained comment that he had a key to the building does not imply that he waslicensed to enter and take what he wanted. Moreover, defendant's claim that, based onthe new evidence, he now believes that the People could not have proved their caseagainst him does not provide a legitimate basis for withdrawal of a plea (see People vMcKinney, 122 AD3d at 1084; People v Wilson, 101 AD3d at 1249).Finally, to the extent that defendant raises the issue, nothing in the record casts doubt onthe effectiveness of counsel (see People v Little, 92 AD3d at 1037).
Peters, P.J., Garry and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Footnote *:Although the notice ofappeal correctly sets forth the Penal Law statutes pursuant to which defendant wasconvicted, it erroneously indicates that the judgment convicted him of the crime ofattempted sexual abuse in the second degree. We exercise our discretion to overlook theinaccuracy and treat the notice of appeal as valid (see CPL 460.10).