| People v Morrison |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02095 [104 AD3d 959] |
| March 27, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael Morrison, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Diane R.Eisner of counsel; Daniel Berman on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Reichbach, J.), rendered April 28, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
When a criminal defendant waives the fundamental right to trial by jury and pleadsguilty, due process requires that the waiver be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent(see NY Const, art I, § 6; People v Hill, 9 NY3d 189, 191 [2007], cert denied553 US 1048 [2008]; People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 403 [1995]). Here, the pleaallocution demonstrates that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily,and intelligently entered (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993];People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9,16 [1983]). The defendant's contention that the plea allocution was factually insufficientis unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). Moreover, the "rarecase" exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because thedefendant's allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essentialelement of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea (People v McNair, 13 NY3d821, 822 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Lopez, 71NY2d at 666 and n 2).
Further, a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion ofthe Supreme Court, and its determination generally will not be disturbed absent animprovident exercise of discretion (see People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780 [2005]; People v Pelaez, 100 AD3d803, 804 [2012]; People vCaruso, 88 AD3d 809 [2011]; People v Amanze, 87 AD3d 1159 [2011]). The SupremeCourt did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, after a hearing, thedefendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see CPL 220.60).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Leventhal,Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.