| People v Ward |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 04436 [140 AD3d 903] |
| June 8, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Sean Ward, Appellant. |
Arnold S. Kronick, White Plains, NY, for appellant.
James A. McCarty, Acting District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Virginia A.Marciano and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Zambelli, J.), rendered March 14, 2014, convicting him of attempted murder in thesecond degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree,upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalidand that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. Asthe defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives even a valid waiver ofthe right to appeal (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Innocent, 132 AD3d696, 696 [2015]), we need not determine whether the defendant's waiver of the rightto appeal was invalid (seePeople v Harvey, 137 AD3d 1162, 1163 [2016]).
The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guiltyrests within the sound discretion of the court and generally will not be disturbed absentan improvident exercise of discretion (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Bush, 132 AD3d691, 691 [2015]; People vBennett, 115 AD3d 973, 973-974 [2014]; People v Howard, 109 AD3d 487, 487 [2013]). "When adefendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-findinginquiry rests largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made and ahearing will be granted only in rare instances" (People v Howard, 109 AD3d at487 [brackets and internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Brown, 14 NY3d 113, 116 [2010]; Peoplev Bennett, 115 AD3d at 973; People v Anderson, 98 AD3d 524 [2012]).
Here, the defendant's contention that he was coerced into pleading guilty based onhis inability to adequately confer with his counsel and to prepare an adequate defense,which essentially rendered his counsel ineffective, is belied by his statements during theplea proceeding, in which he acknowledged under oath that he was satisfied with hiscounsel's representation, that he had not been forced into pleading guilty, and that he wasentering the plea freely and voluntarily (see People v Trimble, 137 AD3d 1309 [2016]; People vBennett, 115 AD3d at 973; People v Howard, 109 AD3d at 487). Since thedefendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was premised on unsubstantiated andconclusory allegations belied by the record, the County Court properly denied the motionwithout conducting a hearing (see People v Bush, 132 AD3d at 692; People vBennett, 115 AD3d at 973; People v Shorter, 106 AD3d 1115 [2013]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Chambers, J.P., Hall, Austinand LaSalle, JJ., concur.