| People v Wilson |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00672 [92 AD3d 981] |
| February 2, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jamal A.Wilson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kevin C. Kortwright, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Katherine G. Henley of counsel), forrespondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (McKeighan,J.), rendered February 10, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofcriminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degreein full satisfaction of a three-count indictment. He thereafter moved to withdraw his plea. CountyCourt denied defendant's motion and sentenced him to the agreed-upon sentence of seven yearsin prison, to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals and weaffirm.
We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in denying his motion to withdrawhis plea. "Whether to allow withdrawal of a guilty plea is left to the sound discretion of CountyCourt, and will generally not be permitted absent some evidence of innocence, fraud or mistakein its inducement" (People vMitchell, 73 AD3d 1346, 1347 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 922 [2010] [internalquotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Sepulveda, 65 AD3d 754, 755 [2009], lvdenied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]). Here, defendant's claims that he was pressured into pleadingguilty and was confused by the plea agreement are belied by the record. County Court engaged ina detailed colloquy during which defendant acknowledged the ramifications of [*2]his plea, including the rights he was relinquishing. Further,defendant unequivocally answered all of County Court's questions with no indication that he didnot understand any aspect of the plea proceedings. Defendant also confirmed that he had not beenthreatened or forced into pleading guilty. Accordingly, we find that County Court did not abuseits discretion in denying defendant's application to withdraw his plea (see People vMitchell, 73 AD3d at 1347; Peoplev Phillips, 71 AD3d 1181, 1182-1183 [2010], lvs denied 15 NY3d 755 [2010]).
We also reject defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.Counsel negotiated a favorable plea and there is nothing in the record that casts doubt on hiseffectiveness (see People v Phillips, 71 AD3d at 1184; People v Singletary, 51 AD3d1334, 1335 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 741 [2008]). Further, the grounds on whichdefendant's claim is based—that counsel pressured him to plead guilty and failed to makecertain pretrial motions, pursue the possibility of defendant entering a drug treatment programand explore possible defenses—all involve matters outside the record and are moreproperly the subject of a CPL article 440 motion (see People v Shurock, 83 AD3d 1342, 1344 [2011]; People v Aubrey, 73 AD3d 1393,1394 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 893 [2011]). Moreover, defendant's claim is belied bythe record, in that defendant acknowledged during the allocution that he had not been coercedinto pleading guilty and that he was satisfied with counsel's representation. Finally, as todefendant's assertion that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive, we discern neither anabuse of discretion nor extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in theinterest of justice (see People vGoodman, 79 AD3d 1285, 1286 [2010]; People v Vargas, 72 AD3d 1114, 1120 [2010], lv denied 15NY3d 758 [2010]).
Lahtinen, J.P., Spain, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.