| People v Roberts |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02602 [126 AD3d 1481] |
| March 27, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vDavid W. Roberts, Appellant. |
Erickson Webb Scolton & Hajdu, Lakewood (Lyle T. Hajdu of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Donald G. O'Geen, District Attorney, Warsaw (Vincent A. Hemming of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Mark H. Dadd, J.), renderedMarch 18, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of course ofsexual conduct against a child in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea ofguilty, of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law§ 130.75 [1] [b]). We reject defendant's contention that County Courtabused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw the guilty plea (see People v Said, 105 AD3d1392, 1393 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1019 [2013]). "[D]efendant'sconclusory and unsubstantiated claim of innocence is belied by his admissions during theplea colloquy" (People vGarner, 86 AD3d 955, 955 [2011]). Contrary to defendant's further contentions,his fear of an unfair trial or the imposition of a longer sentence after trial do notconstitute coercion (seegenerally People v Jackson, 90 AD3d 1692, 1693 [2011], lv denied 18NY3d 958 [2012]; People v Dumpson, 238 AD2d 802, 803 [1997], lv denied90 NY2d 892 [1997]; People v Patrick, 163 AD2d 84, 84 [1990], lvdenied 76 NY2d 895 [1990]).
Defendant's contention that the court's redaction of the presentence report (PSI) wasinadequate is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as he did not raise the issue beforethe sentencing court (seegenerally People v Gibbons, 101 AD3d 1615, 1616 [2012]). In any event,although the words in the paragraph that the court redacted remain visible, it is evidentfrom the court's notation thereon that the paragraph was redacted and that the material isnot available for use against defendant (cf. People v Howard, 124 AD3d 1350, 1351 [2015]).Present—Scudder, P.J., Lindley, Valentino and DeJoseph, JJ.