| People v Singletary |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04796 [51 AD3d 1334] |
| May 29, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v DwightSingletary, Appellant. |
—[*1] P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Brett M. Knowles of counsel), forrespondent.
Kavanagh, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.),rendered February 9, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.
Defendant was charged in a five-count indictment with criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the third degree (four counts) and criminally using drug paraphernalia and thereafterpleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degreein full satisfaction thereof. Following County Court's denial of his motion to withdraw his plea,defendant was sentenced to four years in prison with two years of postrelease supervision. Thisappeal by defendant ensued.
Preliminarily, we reject defendant's assertion that County Court erred in summarily denyinghis motion to withdraw his plea based upon alleged coercion and ineffective assistance ofcounsel. "Generally, a guilty plea may not be withdrawn absent some evidence or claim ofinnocence, fraud or mistake in its inducement" (People v Lane, 1 AD3d 801, 802 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d742 [2004] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Carr, 288AD2d 561 [2001]). To that end, the decision to permit withdrawal of a defendant's guilty plea isa matter committed to the trial court's sound discretion, and a hearing is required only [*2]where the record presents a genuine question of fact as to the plea'svoluntariness (see People v De Fabritis, 296 AD2d 664 [2002], lv denied 99NY2d 557 [2002]; see People vVinals, 2 AD3d 1210 [2003]). Here, the record is devoid of any indication of fraud orinnocence, and defendant's conclusory allegation of coercion is belied by the transcript of his pleaallocution, wherein defendant plainly denied that he had been threatened or otherwise forced toplead guilty (see People v Nichols,21 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 757 [2005]).
Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is equally unpersuasive. "In the contextof a guilty plea, a defendant has been afforded meaningful representation when he or she receivesan advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness ofcounsel" (People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995] [citations omitted]; see People vVinals, 2 AD3d at 1211). As County Court observed in denying defendant's motion, the pleanegotiations occurred over a lengthy period of time during which various motions were made ondefendant's behalf. Additionally, County Court questioned defendant at length regarding hisopportunities to confer with counsel, and defendant unequivocally indicated that he had sufficienttime to consult with counsel and was satisfied with counsel's representation. Finally, it isapparent from the record that counsel negotiated an advantageous plea to a reduced charge ondefendant's behalf (see People vAdams, 31 AD3d 1063, 1066 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 845 [2006]). Undersuch circumstances, we perceive no abuse of discretion in County Court's summary denial ofdefendant's motion to withdraw his plea (see id. at 1065-1066).
Defendant's claim that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary also islacking in merit. Even a cursory review of the plea allocution reveals that defendant understoodthe nature of the charge against him, was apprised of the rights he would be forfeiting bypleading guilty and voluntarily entered into such plea. Notably, "[d]efendant was not required torecite the elements of the crime or engage in a factual exposition, as it was sufficient that heprovided unequivocal affirmative responses to the court's questions, never made statementsnegating his guilt and indicated that he was entering the plea because he was, in fact, guilty" (People v Williams, 35 AD3d 971,972 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 928 [2007]). Finally, we reject defendant's assertion thatthe sentence imposed was harsh and excessive.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.