| People v Anlyan |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 03763 [150 AD3d 869] |
| May 10, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jeffrey Anlyan, Appellant. |
Andrew E. MacAskill, Westbury, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jacqueline Rosenblum and Mary Faldichof counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (O'Reilly, J.,at plea; O'Brien, J., at sentence), rendered March 17, 2009, convicting him of driving whileintoxicated per se in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2) and attemptedcriminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty, as well asthe nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry, rests largely within the sound discretion of thecourt and generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion(see CPL 220.60 [3]; People vBrown, 14 NY3d 113, 116 [2010]; People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482, 485[2002]; People v Jemmott, 125AD3d 1005, 1006 [2015]). Here, the County Court providently exercised its discretion indenying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. The recordestablishes that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligentlyentered (see People v Conceicao, 26NY3d 375, 382-383 [2015]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 19-20 [1983]). Contrary tothe defendant's contention, there is no basis in the record to support the conclusion that, at thetime of the plea proceeding, the defendant lacked the capacity to understand the nature of theproceeding or the consequences of his plea (see People v DeBenedetto, 120 AD3d 1428, 1429 [2014]; People v Gordon, 107 AD3d 739,740 [2013]; People v Brooks, 89AD3d 747 [2011]). During the plea colloquy, the defendant stated that there was nothingimpairing his ability to understand the nature of the proceedings, appropriately responded to thequestions asked of him, and gave no indication that he was mentally incapacitated (see Peoplev DeBenedetto, 120 AD3d at 1429; People v Ramos, 77 AD3d 773, 774 [2010]). Rivera, J.P.,Chambers, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.