| People v Tavares |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 01101 [103 AD3d 820] |
| February 20, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael Tavares, Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County(Greller, J.), rendered March 15, 2012, convicting him of assault in the second degree,upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guiltyrests within the sound discretion of the court and generally will not be disturbed absentan improvident exercise of discretion (see People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780 [2005]; People v McClurkin, 96 AD3d784, 785 [2012]; People vBivens, 88 AD3d 808 [2011]; People v Mann, 32 AD3d 865, 866 [2006]). Here, thedefendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered his negotiated plea of guiltywith the assistance of competent counsel in exchange for the promise of a favorablesentence (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536 [1993]; People vHarris, 61 NY2d 9 [1983]; People v Pooler, 58 AD3d 757 [2009]; People v Ford, 44 AD3d1070 [2007]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the remarks made by theCounty Court and the prosecutor during the plea proceeding regarding the defendant'spossible sentence exposure were he to proceed to trial were informative, not coercive (see People v Foster, 99 AD3d812, 813 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 986 [2012]; People v Strong, 80 AD3d717, 718 [2011]; People vBravo, 72 AD3d 697, 698 [2010]). Furthermore, the court properly advised thedefendant of the constitutional rights he would forfeit by pleading guilty, including hisright to a jury trial (see People v Harris, 61 NY2d at 17-18; People vMaddox, 105 AD2d 849 [1984]), and the defendant's acknowledgment under oathduring the plea proceeding that no one had threatened, forced, or pressured him intopleading guilty, belied his subsequent claim of coercion (see People v Martinez, 78AD3d 966, 967 [2010]; People v Perez, 51 AD3d 1043 [2008]; People v Beasley, 50 AD3d697 [2008]). Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in denyingthe defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. Angiolillo, J.P., Balkin, Austin andMiller, JJ., concur.