| People v Tepley |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02597 [105 AD3d 977] |
| April 17, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Sarah Tepley, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County(Crecca, J.), dated March 19, 2012, which denied her motion to withdraw her plea ofguilty, and (2) a judgment of the same court rendered May 4, 2012, convicting her ofsexual abuse in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The appeal from the order must be dismissed, as no appeal lies, as of right or bypermission, from an order denying a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty (seeCPL 460.10, 460.15). However, the issues raised on the appeal from the order arebrought up for review on the appeal from the judgment.
The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guiltyrests within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court and generally will not bedisturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Seeber, 4 NY3d780 [2005]; People vDuncan, 78 AD3d 1193 [2010]). Here, contrary to the defendant's contention,there is no proof that her plea was involuntary or unintelligent (see People v Adelman, 36AD3d 926, 927 [2007]). In particular, both the plea minutes and the court'srecollection of the plea proceedings contradict the defendant's allegation that her allegedintoxication at the time of the plea affected her ability to understand the proceedings (see People v Lopez, 84 AD3d578 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise itsdiscretion by denying the defendant's motion to withdraw the plea.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that she was deprived of the effectiveassistance of counsel (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d143 [2005]; People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000]; People v Caruso, 88 AD3d809 [2011]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.