| People v Cicio |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 00532 [157 AD3d 651] |
| January 30, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Terry Cicio, Appellant. |
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Samuel E. Steinbock-Pratt ofcounsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Jennifer L. Watson of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Marc J. Whiten, J.), rendered January 4, 2016,convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencinghim, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.
The record sufficiently establishes that defendant's waiver of indictment and prosecution bysuperior court information satisfied the requirement that a "criminal court has held the defendantfor the action of a grand jury" (CPL 195.10). The record demonstrates that upon defendant'swaiver of the case to the grand jury (see CPL 180.30 [1]), the court, sitting as a hybridpart, transferred the case from its Criminal Court capacity to its Supreme Court capacity, therebyeffectively ordering defendant held for grand jury action (see People v Yunga, 122 AD3d 951 [2d Dept 2014], lvdenied 25 NY3d 993 [2015]; Peoplev Davenport, 106 AD3d 1197 [3d Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1073[2013]).
The court properly exercised its discretion in summarily denying defendant's motion towithdraw his plea made pro se while represented by counsel (see People v Frederick, 45NY2d 520 [1978]). "[T]he nature and extent of the fact-finding procedures on such motions restlargely in the discretion of the court" (People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 544 [1993]).Defendant submitted only a generalized standard form motion without inserting any specificallegations, and there was nothing to cast doubt on the voluntariness of the plea.Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Mazzarelli, Kern, Singh, JJ.