| People v Trimm |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 04883 [129 AD3d 1215] |
| June 11, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vDustin J. Trimm, Appellant. |
O'Connell & Aronowitz, Albany (Scott Iseman of counsel), for appellant.
Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (A. Michael Gebo of counsel), forrespondent.
Peters, P.J. Appeals from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County(Richards, J.), rendered August 5, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty ofthe crimes of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal sexual act in the first degree(two counts).
In satisfaction of three indictments and certain uncharged crimes against knownvictims, defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree and two counts ofcriminal sexual act in the first degree and waived his right to appeal. Prior to sentencing,defendant moved to withdraw his plea, claiming that it was not knowingly, intelligentlyand voluntarily entered. County Court denied the motion without a hearing and sentenceddefendant, in accordance with the plea agreement, to an aggregate prison term of 32years followed by 25 years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.
"The decision as to whether a defendant should be permitted to withdraw his or herguilty plea is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and a hearing is onlywarranted when the record presents a genuine issue of fact with respect to itsvoluntariness" (People vWren, 119 AD3d 1291, 1292 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1048 [2014][citations omitted]; see People vBrown, 14 NY3d 113, 116 [2010]; People v Abdullah, 122 AD3d 958, 959 [2014], lvdenied 24 NY3d 1218 [2015]). Here, County Court conducted a thorough anddetailed plea colloquy, during which defendant confirmed his understanding of the termsof the plea agreement, the trial-related rights that he would be relinquishing and theconsequences of pleading guilty. He further stated that he had not been threatened orcoerced into pleading guilty, [*2]and freely andunequivocally admitted to engaging in the conduct constituting the crimes at issue.Defendant's claim that he had been under the influence of drugs at the time of the plea isin direct conflict with his acknowledgment during the allocution that he was not underthe influence of any such substance, and he offered no evidence to support his assertionthat his mental state prevented him from entering a voluntary guilty plea (see People v Johnson, 77AD3d 986, 986 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 743 [2011]; People v Williams, 35 AD3d971, 972 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 928 [2007]; People v Obert, 1 AD3d631, 631-632 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 764 [2004]). Further, defendant'sunsubstantiated protestations of innocence, after having confessed to the crimes duringthe plea, are insufficient to warrant a hearing (see People v Barton, 126 AD3d 1238, 1239 [2015];People v Abdullah, 122 AD3d at 960; People v Arnold, 102 AD3d 1061, 1062 [2013]).
With respect to defendant's contention that his plea was not voluntary because hewas denied the effective assistance of counsel, his claims that counsel provided him witherroneous legal advice and failed to adequately explain the terms of the plea agreementconcern matters outside of the record and are properly the subject of a CPL article 440motion (see People v Barton, 126 AD3d at 1239; People v Ramey, 123 AD3d1290, 1291 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 953 [2015]; People v Cole, 118 AD3d1098, 1100 [2014]; Peoplev Brown, 115 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 959[2014]). His claim of ineffectiveness is also contradicted by the plea allocution, duringwhich he assured County Court that he had ample time to discuss the matter with thevarious attorneys that represented him, that he was satisfied with the services of hiscounsel and that, other than what had been put on the record as part of the agreement, noother promises had been made to him as to what sentence he would receive. Indeed,counsel was able to secure a very favorable plea agreement in light of the number andseverity of the crimes charged, and "nothing in the record at the time of the plea calls intoquestion the voluntariness of [the] plea or indicates that it was rendered so due tocounsel's representation" (People v Herringshaw, 83 AD3d 1133, 1134 [2011];accord People v Brown, 115 AD3d at 1116; see People v Howard, 119 AD3d 1090, 1091 [2014], lvdenied 24 NY3d 961 [2014]; People v Wilson, 92 AD3d 981, 982 [2012], lvdenied 19 NY3d 1029 [2012]). Accordingly, County Court did not abuse itsdiscretion in denying defendant's motion without a hearing.
Lahtinen, McCarthy and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.