| People v Little |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00867 [92 AD3d 1036] |
| February 9, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard E.Little, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard D. Northrup, District Attorney, Delhi (John L. Hubbard of counsel), forrespondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Delaware County (Becker, J.),rendered January 31, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of recklessendangerment in the first degree (two counts).
Defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and twocounts of reckless endangerment in the first degree. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendantpleaded guilty to both counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree and waived his right toappeal. Under the terms of the agreement, defendant was to be sentenced to five years ofprobation with the imposition of $1,500 in fines on each count. In addition, an order of protectionwould be issued for the benefit of the two victims of the crimes. After defendant entered hisguilty plea, he moved to withdraw his plea arguing that he was innocent, his plea had beencoerced and he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. County Court denied the motionwithout a hearing and sentenced defendant in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement.Defendant appeals.
The decision whether to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea rests within the sounddiscretion of the trial court and, generally, such relief will be permitted only where there isevidence of innocence, fraud or mistake in the inducement (see People v Ellis, 43 AD3d 485, 486[*2][2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 961 [2007]; People v Cherry, 12 AD3d 949,949 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 797 [2005]). A review of the record reveals that defendantwas adequately informed of the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty and that he understoodthose rights, he asked for and received clarification on certain matters and he was able to conferwith his family and counsel for as long as he needed during the plea proceedings (see People v Branton, 35 AD3d1035, 1036 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 982 [2007]; People v Bolden, 289AD2d 607, 609 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 649 [2002]). Defendant stated that he waspleading guilty freely and voluntarily, and his contention that his plea was involuntary due to thebrief time that he took to decide whether to accept the plea is unavailing (see People vEllis, 43 AD3d at 487; People v Branton, 35 AD3d at 1036). Additionally, givendefendant's unequivocal admission of facts sufficient to establish each element of the crimes, weare not persuaded that the affidavits of defendant and his wife submitted in support of his motionconstitute evidence of his innocence such that a hearing was required (see People vBranton, 35 AD3d at 1036). Finally, we find that nothing in the record casts doubt on theapparent effectiveness of counsel (see People v Ellis, 43 AD3d at 487; People v Lahon, 17 AD3d 778,779-780 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 790 [2005]).
Peters, J.P., Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.