| People v Lockwood |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 08867 [178 AD3d 855] |
| December 11, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Vanallen Lockwood, Appellant. |
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Yael V. Levy and Monica M.C. Leiter ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Howard E.Sturim, J.), rendered March 5, 2018, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon his pleaof guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
"The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty, as wellas the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry, rests largely within the sound discretion ofthe court and generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion" (People v DeBenedetto, 120 AD3d1428, 1429 [2014]; see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Brown, 14 NY3d 113, 116 [2010]; People v Jemmott, 125 AD3d1005, 1006 [2015]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion indenying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. Thedefendant's contention that his plea was not voluntary because he was coerced by his trialattorney is belied by the record, which reveals that the defendant acknowledged under oath thatno one had threatened or forced him to plead guilty (see People v Monroe, 174 AD3d 649, 650 [2019]; People v Tavares, 103 AD3d 820,821 [2013]). The record as a whole affirmatively demonstrates that the defendant entered his pleaknowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 19[1983]).
As the defendant contends, certain statements made by his trial counsel prior to sentencing,in connection with the defendant's pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, were adverse to thedefendant's contention that he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel. Nevertheless,under the particular circumstances of this case, it was unnecessary to assign the defendant newcounsel in connection with the motion. The Supreme Court's stated reasons for denying thedefendant's motion reflect that the court based its determination upon the record before it and notupon any statements made by the defendant's counsel (see People v Rogers, 43 AD3d 1189 [2007]; People v Shegog, 32 AD3d 1289,1291 [2006]; People v Cook, 295 AD2d 888 [2002]; see also People v Greene,208 AD2d 764 [1994]). Mastro, J.P., Roman, Connolly and Iannacci, JJ., concur.