| People v Stimus |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07824 [100 AD3d 1542] |
| November 16, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derrick J.Stimus, Appellant. |
—[*1] Derrick J. Stimus, defendant-appellant pro se. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R. Schwartz, A.J.), renderedJanuary 31, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the second 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 of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]),defendant contends in his main and pro se supplemental briefs that the plea was not knowing andvoluntary. Although defendant preserved that contention for our review by his motion towithdraw his plea (cf. People vMoore, 6 AD3d 1076, 1076-1077 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 661 [2004]), hiscontention is without merit. Defendant advised County Court that he understood the rights thathe was waiving by pleading guilty; that he was satisfied with the services of his attorney; and thathe understood that, by pleading guilty, he forfeited the right to contend on appeal that his arrestwas not based upon probable cause. We therefore conclude that defendant's plea was knowingand voluntary (see generally People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 19 [1983]).
Defendant also contends in his main and pro se supplemental briefs that the court erred indenying his motion to withdraw his plea without conducting a further inquiry into his allegationsthat he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel. "The court afforded defendant therequisite 'reasonable opportunity to present his contentions' in support of that motion. . . and [it] did not abuse its discretion in concluding that no further inquiry wasneeded" (People v Strasser, 83AD3d 1411, 1411 [2011], quoting People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]).Defendant's vague allegations that he was denied effective assistance of counsel were rejected bythe court, which had presided over the pretrial proceedings and the plea. Defendant wasrepresented by different attorneys employed by the Public Defender's Office in connection withthe plea and sentencing, at which time he made the motion to withdraw his plea. Because thecourt determined that the motion to withdraw the plea was without merit, we reject defendant'sfurther contention that the court erred in failing to assign new counsel to represent him withrespect to the motion (see [*2]generally People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 100-101 [2010]).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions in his pro se supplemental brief andconclude that none requires reversal or modification. Present—Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Carni,Valentino and Martoche, JJ.