| People v Gordon |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04026 [107 AD3d 739] |
| June 5, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kimarlie Gordon, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Laurie Sapakoff, StevenBender, and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Zambelli, J.), rendered January 25, 2011, convicting him of attempted robbery in thefirst degree, upon his plea of guilty (Holdman, J.), and imposing sentence. The appealbrings up for review the denial (Holdman, J.), without a hearing, of the defendant'smotion to withdraw his plea of guilty.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, without ahearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. A motion to withdraw aplea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the County Court, and itsdetermination generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise ofdiscretion (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780 [2005]; People v Dazzo, 92 AD3d796 [2012]; People vCaruso, 88 AD3d 809 [2011]; People v Amanze, 87 AD3d 1159 [2011]). The recordsupports the County Court's determination that the defendant's plea was enteredknowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d536, 543 [1993]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16-17 [1983]). The defendant'scontention that he did not understand the proceeding against him because he was onmedication is belied by the transcript of the plea proceeding, which reveals, through acolloquy between the defendant and the court, that the defendant did not lack thecapacity to understand the proceeding against him or to assist in his own defense, andwhich shows that he answered all of the court's questions appropriately, allocuted to thecrime, and expressly acknowledged that he understood what he was doing and that hewas pleading guilty because he was in fact guilty (see People v Keiser, 100 AD3d 927 [2012]; People v Ramos, 77 AD3d773, 774 [2010]; People vM'Lady, 59 AD3d 568 [2009]; People v Martinez, 33 AD3d 631 [2006]). The record alsobelies the defendant's postplea claim that he was "tricked" by the Judge into pleadingguilty (see People v Andrade, 190 AD2d 678, 679 [1993]), as well as his claimthat he was not guilty, which he made at the sentencing proceeding and to his probationofficer during his presentence interview (see People v Dixon, 29 NY2d 55, 57[1971]; People v Soria, 99AD3d 1027 [2012]; Peoplev Gibson, 95 AD3d 1033, 1033-1034 [2012]). Angiolillo, J.P., Balkin, Austinand Miller, JJ., concur.