| People v Riddick |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 01020 [136 AD3d 1124] |
| February 11, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vHassan Riddick, Appellant. |
Kindlon Shanks & Associates, Albany (Terence L. Kindlon of counsel), forappellant.
P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Michael C. Wetmore of counsel), forrespondent.
Peters, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Breslin, J.), renderedApril 28, 2015 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrime of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
In satisfaction of a five-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to a reducedcharge of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Thereafter,defendant moved to withdraw his plea based on newly discovered evidence, consisting ofa letter from the victim recanting his prior statements that implicated defendant in thecrimes charged. Supreme Court denied the motion without a hearing and sentenceddefendant, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of five years followed by fiveyears of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in denyinghis motion to withdraw his plea without a hearing. The nature and extent of thefact-finding procedures necessary to decide a motion to withdraw a guilty plea rest withinthe discretion of the trial court (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 544[1993]; People v Stamps, 268 AD2d 886, 887 [2000], lv denied 94 NY2d925 [2000]), and "[o]nly in the rare instance will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiaryhearing" (People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]). Here, the basis for themotion to withdraw the plea was the notarized letter submitted by the victim that recantedhis statements regarding defendant's involvement in the crimes charged. As noted bySupreme Court, such recantation evidence is inherently unreliable (see People vCaruso, [*2]88 AD3d 809, 810 [2011], lvdenied 18 NY3d 923 [2012]; People v Griffin, 4 AD3d 674, 675 [2004]), particularlywhere, as here, the recanting victim had been in custody for several months in the samefacility where defendant and the codefendant were held. Furthermore, the pleaproceeding reflects a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty and does nototherwise call into question defendant's guilt (see People v Little, 92 AD3d 1036, 1036 [2012]). In viewof the foregoing, we find that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in failing toconduct an evidentiary hearing prior to denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea(see People v Shurock, 83AD3d 1342, 1343 [2011]; People v Branton, 35 AD3d 1035, 1035 [2006], lvdenied 8 NY3d 982 [2007]; People v Stamps, 268 AD2d at 888). Absent anyother ground justifying the withdrawal of the plea, the motion was properly denied(see People v Stamps, 268 AD2d at 887).
Garry, Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.