| People v Brandon |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08299 [112 AD3d 1069] |
| December 12, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vDominick A. Brandon, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Peter N. DeLucia of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith,J.), rendered May 7, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes ofarson in the second degree, attempted rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the firstdegree.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement that resolved two indictments and otherpending misdemeanor charges against him, defendant pleaded guilty to arson in thesecond degree, attempted rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree.Prior to sentencing, defendant sent a letter to County Court expressing his desire towithdraw his plea—contending that he was innocent, that defense counsel hadpressured him to plead guilty and that he had not been provided with meaningfulrepresentation. Following a detailed colloquy with defendant, County Court denied themotion and thereafter sentenced defendant upon each count, as promised, to five years inprison followed by five years of postrelease supervision—said sentences to runconcurrently. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. "The decision to permit withdrawal of a guilty plea is a matter within thetrial court's sound discretion, and a hearing is required only where the record presents agenuine question of fact as to its voluntariness" (People v Carbone, 101 AD3d 1232, 1234 [2012] [internalquotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Galvan, 107 AD3d 1058, 1058 [2013], lvdenied 21 NY3d 1042 [2013]). Here, the plea colloquy reflects, among other things,[*2]that County Court apprised defendant of theconsequences of his plea and that defendant, in turn, evidenced his understanding of theterms of the plea agreement, freely admitted his guilt and indicated that he was bothsatisfied with counsel's services and had been afforded sufficient opportunity to conferwith counsel prior to entering his plea. "Inasmuch as nothing in the record casts doubtupon defendant's guilt and defendant's postplea assertions of innocence and unduepressure from counsel are wholly unsubstantiated, County Court properly denied themotion to withdraw the plea without a hearing" (People v Arnold, 102 AD3d 1061, 1062 [2013] [citationsomitted]; see People vHoyt, 106 AD3d 1340, 1340 [2013]; People v Herringshaw, 83 AD3d 1133, 1133-1134 [2011]).
To the extent that defendant contends that County Court failed to apprise him of hisright to remain silent prior to accepting his plea upon the sex crimes, we note thatdefendant's motion to withdraw his plea was not premised upon this ground and there isno indication that defendant moved to vacate the judgment of conviction. Accordingly,this argument is not preserved for our review (see People v Dame, 100 AD3d 1032, 1033 [2012], lvdenied 21 NY3d 1003 [2013]; People v Escalante, 16 AD3d 984, 984-985 [2005], lvdenied 5 NY3d 788 [2005]). In any event, "a defendant need not be advised of everyspecific right to which he or she is waiving as a result of a guilty plea, as long as thedefendant sufficiently understands the consequences of the plea and enters it voluntarily"(People v Newcomb, 45AD3d 890, 892 [2007]; seePeople v Diaz, 26 AD3d 644, 645 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 755[2006]). Finally, given that defendant's motion was premised upon "conclusory andunsupported allegations," County Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to assigndefendant new counsel on his motion to withdraw his plea (People v Trombley, 91 AD3d1197, 1202 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 914 [2013]; see People v Murray, 25 AD3d911, 912 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 896 [2006]).
Stein, J.P., McCarthy and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.