| People v Ackley |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04313 [84 AD3d 1639] |
| May 26, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick J.Ackley, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald A. Keene, District Attorney, Owego (Irene C. Graven of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tioga County (Sgueglia, J.),rendered October 27, 2008, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofattempted sexual abuse in the first degree.
Defendant was charged with sexual abuse in the first degree. On the date of trial, defendantpleaded guilty to attempted sexual abuse in the first degree in accordance with a negotiated pleaagreement. The agreement provided that defendant would be sentenced to a prison term of 2 to 4years followed by five years of postrelease supervision, to run concurrently with a sentencealready being served by defendant for another unrelated crime. Defendant thereafter moved towithdraw his plea on the basis that he had discovered new evidence establishing his innocence.County Court denied defendant's motion and imposed a sentence in accordance with the pleaagreement. Defendant appeals.
In support of his motion to withdraw, defendant submitted hospital records indicating that hewas treated for a knee injury on the date of the crime. He also submitted his own affidavit statingthat, although he was at the victim's home on the date in question, the victim was not present. Weare not persuaded that this constitutes new evidence such that withdrawal of the plea wasrequired. Although the evidence submitted may raise possible factual defenses to the [*2]crime, defendant offered no explanation as to why suchinformation—which was within his own personal knowledge—was not available tohim at the time of his plea. Accordingly, we do not find that County Court abused its discretionin denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea (see People v Griffin, 4 AD3d 674, 674-675 [2004]; People vPace, 284 AD2d 806, 807 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 686 [2001]; People vBrown, 126 AD2d 898, 899-900 [1987], lv denied 70 NY2d 703 [1987]).
Defendant also argues that the plea allocution was insufficient. There is no requirement that adefendant provide detailed factual support for every element of the crime (see People v Quaye, 52 AD3d1021, 1021-1022 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 834 [2008]). Where, as here, adefendant admits his or her guilt and affirmatively responds to County Court's inquiries regardingthe elements of the crime, the allocution is sufficient (see People v Kaszubinski, 55 AD3d 1133, 1135-1136 [2008], lvdenied 12 NY3d 855 [2009]; People v Quaye, 52 AD3d at 1021-1022; People vPace, 284 AD2d at 807). Furthermore, County Court advised defendant of the consequencesof his plea and defendant indicated that he understood. In short, there is nothing in the recordbefore us to indicate that defendant's plea was anything other than knowing, voluntary andintelligent.
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.