| People v Anderson |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05832 [98 AD3d 524] |
| August 1, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JamesAnderson, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael J. Miller of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Lozito, J.),rendered April 22, 2010, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree and attemptedgrand larceny in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, thedefendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty isaddressed to the sound discretion of the sentencing court, and its determination generally will notbe disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780 [2005]; People v Dazzo, 92 AD3d 796[2012]; People v Caruso, 88 AD3d809 [2011]). "When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent ofthe fact-finding inquiry 'rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made'and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances" (People v Brown, 14 NY3d 113, 116 [2010], quoting People vTinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]).
Here, the record supports the County Court's determination that the defendant's plea wasentered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d536, 543 [1993]). The defendant's postplea assertions that he was coerced and entrapped intopleading guilty are belied by his statements under oath at his plea allocution, and wereinsufficient to warrant withdrawal of his plea or a hearing (see People v Dazzo, 92 AD3dat 796-797; People v Caruso, 88 AD3d at 810).
The defendant's contention that the County Court improperly sentenced him without orderingan updated presentence report is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Gambichler, 25 AD3d722, 723 [2006]), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justicejurisdiction (see CPL 470.05 [2]).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance ofcounsel because his assigned counsel at sentencing did not make a motion pursuant to CPL440.10 (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal,Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.