| People v Harris |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04630 [63 AD3d 1653] |
| June 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William D.Harris, Appellant. |
—[*1] Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Michael J. Hillery of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Debra L. Givens, A.J.), rendered January28, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal contempt in thefirst 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 ofcriminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [c]), defendant contends thatCounty Court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing before denying his oral motion towithdraw his guilty plea. We reject that contention. "Only in the rare instance will a defendant beentitled to an evidentiary hearing [on such a motion] . . . The defendant should beafforded a reasonable opportunity to present his contentions and the court should be enabled tomake an informed determination" (People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]). Here,the court adjourned the sentencing proceedings several times and afforded defendant multipleopportunities to present his contentions to the court with respect to the motion. Thosecontentions, i.e., that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel and that the plea wascoerced by defense counsel's "stories," are belied by his statements during the plea colloquy (see People v Farley, 34 AD3d1229 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 880 [2007]).
Contrary to the further contention of defendant, he forfeited his right to be present atsentencing by willfully absenting himself from the courtroom "for the purpose of frustrating thesentencing process" (People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 932, 935 [1992], lv denied80 NY2d 977 [1992]; see People v Corley, 67 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1986]).Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention concerning the order of protection (see generally People v Nieves, 2 NY3d310, 315-317 [2004]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as amatter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith, Fahey, Carni and Green, JJ.