| People v Sweat |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 00199 [157 AD3d 1062] |
| January 11, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v David Sweat, Appellant. |
Matthew C. Hug, Albany, for appellant.
Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Jamie A. Douthat of counsel), forrespondent.
Aarons, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.),rendered February 3, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of escapein the first degree (two counts) and promoting prison contraband in the first degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to a three-count indictment charging him with two counts of escapein the first degree and one count of promoting prison contraband in the first degree. The chargesstemmed from defendant and another inmate successfully escaping from a state correctionalfacility. Thereafter, defendant moved to withdraw his plea, asserting that he was unaware at thetime of his plea of his full constitutional rights, that he did not have sufficient time to speak withcounsel and that he had a defense to the escape charges. After making certain inquiries, CountyCourt denied the motion without a hearing and sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender,to an aggregate prison term of 7 to 14 years, to run consecutively to the prison term he wascurrently serving. Defendant appeals.
We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that County Court abused its discretion indenying his 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 within thediscretion of the trial court, and only in the rare instance will a defendant be entitled to anevidentiary hearing" (People vRiddick, 136 AD3d 1124, 1124 [2016] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citationsomitted], lv denied 27 NY3d 1154 [2016]; see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 [*2]NY2d 536, 544 [1993]). "An evidentiary hearing will be requiredonly where the record presents a genuine question of fact as to the plea's voluntariness" (People v Decker, 139 AD3d 1113,1116 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 28 NY3d 928[2016]).
Here, the record establishes that defendant was aware of the nature of the plea agreement,including the constitutional rights that he was forfeiting as a result of the plea agreement, and thathe had an opportunity to discuss the consequences of the plea with his counsel. As the recorddemonstrates that defendant entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea, and he has madeno showing of innocence, fraud or mistake in the inducement, we find that County Court did notabuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea without a hearing (see People v Chaires, 150 AD3d1326, 1327 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1124 [2017]; People v Taylor, 135 AD3d 1237,1237-1238 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1075 [2016]).
To the extent that defendant challenges his sentence as harsh and excessive, we note that theissue is academic inasmuch as the sentence is to run consecutively to the sentence he is currentlyserving, which is life without parole. In any event, in imposing the maximum sentence, CountyCourt considered the serious nature of the offense, the trauma and fear instilled in the communityduring the weeks it took to apprehend defendant and the considerable resources and expenseinvolved in his recapture. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion orextraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence (see People v Launder, 132 AD3d1151, 1154-1155 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1153 [2016]).
McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.