| People v Vega |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05927 [109 AD3d 942] |
| September 18, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Reggie Vega, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Sharon Y. Brodt of counsel; Lorrie A. Zinno on the brief), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Gavrin, J.), rendered October 15, 2007, convicting him of attempted murder in thesecond degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. By decision and order ofthis Court dated October 25, 2011, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, QueensCounty, to hear and report on the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, andthe appeal was held in abeyance in the interim (see People v Vega, 88 AD3d 1022 [2011]). The SupremeCourt has now submitted its report. Justice Skelos has been substituted for former JusticeFlorio (see 22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that his plea of guilty was rendered involuntary because hisattorney was ineffective in that he failed to advise the defendant of a prior plea offer thatthe defendant would have accepted. "To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance ofcounsel based upon the defense counsel's failure to advise the defendant with respect toan offer of a plea agreement, a defendant must demonstrate that a plea offer was made,that defense counsel failed to inform him [or her] of that offer, and that he [or she] wouldhave been willing to accept the offer" (People v Goldberg, 33 AD3d 1018, 1019 [2006] [internalquotation marks omitted]; seePeople v Fernandez, 5 NY3d 813 [2005]; People v Rogers, 8 AD3d 888, 890-891 [2004]; seealso Missouri v Frye, 566 US —, —, 132 S Ct 1399, 1408-1409[2012]). Here, at the hearing conducted upon remittitur, the defendant failed to meet hisburden of establishing that Vincent Siccardi, the attorney who represented him during theplea negotiation process, failed to convey a particular offer to him. The defendant and hiswife, on one hand, and Siccardi, on the other, offered contradictory testimony as towhether a particular offer was conveyed to the defendant by Siccardi, giving rise to acredibility issue which the Supreme Court resolved in Siccardi's favor. " 'The credibilitydeterminations of a hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will notbe disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record' " (People v Davis, 103 AD3d810, 811 [2013], quoting People v Martinez, 58 AD3d 870, 870-871 [2009]; seePeople v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; People v Condon, 100 AD3d 920, 920 [2012]; People v Wilson, 96 AD3d980, 981 [2012]; People vMarinus, 90 AD3d 677, 678 [2011]). We see no reason to disturb the SupremeCourt's credibility determinations in this regard. Accordingly, the Supreme Courtproperly, in effect, denied the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. Rivera,J.P., Skelos, Dickerson and Lott, JJ., concur.