| People v Beaver |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 03565 [150 AD3d 1325] |
| May 4, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Horace R. Beaver, Appellant. |
Paul R. Corradini, Elmira, for appellant.
Matthew Van Houten, District Attorney, Ithaca (Alysandra Stanczak of counsel), forrespondent.
Aarons, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tompkins County (Rowley, J.),rendered July 10, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminalsexual act in the second degree, attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degreeand criminal contempt in the first degree (two counts).
In satisfaction of a seven-count indictment and other charges, defendant pleaded guilty tocriminal sexual act in the second degree, attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the thirddegree and two counts of criminal contempt in the first degree and waived his right to appeal.County Court denied defendant's subsequent motion to withdraw his plea and thereaftersentenced him, in accordance with the plea agreement, to an aggregate prison term of four yearsfollowed by 10 years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.
We are unpersuaded by defendant's sole contention that County Court abused its discretion indenying his motion to withdraw his plea. "Whether to permit a defendant to withdraw his or herplea of guilty is left to the sound discretion of County Court, and withdrawal will generally notbe permitted absent some evidence of innocence, fraud or mistake in its inducement" (People v Farnsworth, 140 AD3d1538, 1539 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). The nature and extentof the necessary fact-finding procedures in order to decide a motion to withdraw the plea iswithin the trial court's discretion "and a limited interrogation by the court will often be sufficient"(People v Cadet, 144 AD3d1335, 1336 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1143 [2017]). "An evidentiary hearing israrely necessary and is [*2]required only where the recordpresents a genuine question of fact as to voluntariness" (People v Miles, 138 AD3d 1350, 1351 [2016] [internal quotationmarks, ellipsis and citations omitted], lv denied 28 NY3d 934 [2016]).
Here, defendant moved to withdraw his plea based on his claim of innocence, pointing to thevictim's alleged recantation of the sexual abuse incident, and his assertion that he was coercedinto entering the plea. Any alleged statement by the victim recanting the incident, however, waspreviously submitted by defendant in connection with his omnibus motion, and therefore knownby him prior to his plea of guilty. In any event, "recantation evidence . . . [is]inherently unreliable and insufficient, alone, to justify withdrawal of the plea" (People v Caruso, 88 AD3d 809,810 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 18 NY3d 923[2012]; see People v Riddick, 136AD3d 1124, 1124 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1154 [2016]). Further, with regard tothe voluntariness of the plea, the record establishes that County Court fully explained the termsof the plea agreement, which were consistent with the plea memorandum that defendant hadpreviously signed, and set forth in detail the crimes to which defendant was pleading guilty.Defendant affirmed his understanding of the plea agreement and unequivocally admitted to thefacts that established the crimes. Any assertion that the plea agreement included promisesregarding his family members is belied by the record. As the record does not reveal anylegitimate question about the voluntariness of defendant's plea or his actual innocence, CountyCourt did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing nor do we find anyerror in the denial of the motion (see People v Farnsworth, 140 AD3d at 1540; Peoplev Riddick, 136 AD3d at 1125).
Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Mulvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.