| People v Ravenell |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00908 [114 AD3d 997] |
| February 13, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vJoseph J. Ravenell, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joshua S. Shapiro of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith,J.), rendered February 17, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimeof attempted robbery in the first degree.
Defendant was indicted on one count of attempted robbery in the first degreefollowing an incident in which he attempted to rob a convenience store with a butcherknife. Following multiple adjournments for defendant to consider the People's offer torecommend a sentence of no more than six years in prison in exchange for a plea ofguilty to the charged crime, defendant pleaded guilty. While awaiting sentencing,defendant sent County Court two letters expressing dissatisfaction with his representationand indicating his desire to withdraw his plea. Following further proceedings and theassignment of new counsel, defendant moved to withdraw his plea. County Courtthereafter denied defendant's motion without a hearing and sentenced defendant to aprison term of five years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendantnow appeals.
We affirm. The only argument presented on appeal is that County Court erred inrefusing defendant's request to withdraw his plea. The decision whether to grant a motionto withdraw a guilty plea rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and a hearingis only warranted in rare instances (see People v Pittman, 104 AD3d 1027, 1027 [2013], lvdenied 21 [*2]NY3d 1008 [2013]; People v Trombley, 91 AD3d1197, 1202 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 914 [2013]). "Generally, a plea maynot be withdrawn absent evidence of innocence, fraud or mistake in the inducement" (People v Arnold, 102 AD3d1061, 1062 [2013] [citations omitted]). Here, defendant unequivocallyadmitted—in great detail—to conduct constituting the crime, the range ofsentencing options was explained to him on multiple occasions by both the court anddefense counsel prior to his guilty plea, he acknowledged that he understood the plea andhad sufficient time to discuss the matter with counsel, he affirmed that he had neitherbeen threatened to plead guilty nor promised anything outside of the sentencing rangeand he stated that he was pleading guilty freely and voluntarily. Accordingly, CountyCourt did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion without a hearing (see People v Hoyt, 106 AD3d1340, 1340 [2013]; People v Pittman, 104 AD3d at 1028).
Peters, P.J., Stein and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.