People v Crawford
2014 NY Slip Op 01458 [115 AD3d 672]
March 5, 2014
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 30, 2014


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Timothy Crawford, Appellant.

[*1]Christine Moccia, Chappaqua, N.Y., for appellant.

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco andRichard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Molea, J.), rendered November 15, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the first degreeand robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the trialcourt (see People vMcGhee, 62 AD3d 1027 [2009]), and its determination generally will not bedisturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see People v DeLeon, 40AD3d 1008, 1009 [2007]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised itsdiscretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. Thedefendant submitted no evidence to substantiate his assertion that he was heavilymedicated during the plea hearing and, indeed, his testimony at the plea hearingspecifically contradicts that claim (see People v Wiedmer, 71 AD3d 1067 [2010]; cf. People v M'Lady, 59 AD3d568 [2009]).

The defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be reviewed ondirect appeal because they are based on matter outside the record on appeal (see People v Rohlehr, 87AD3d 603, 604 [2011]; People v Miller, 68 AD3d 1135, 1135 [2009]). " 'Theappropriate vehicle . . . to allege ineffective assistance of counsel groundedin allegations referring to facts outside of the . . . record is pursuant to CPL440.10, where matters dehors the record may be considered' " (People v Rohlehr,87 AD3d at 604, quoting People v Miller, 68 AD3d at 1135).

The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his remainingcontention (see People vLopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Sanders, 112 AD3d 748 [2013]). Dillon, J.P.,Leventhal, Chambers and LaSalle, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.