| People v Johnson |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 02418 [182 AD3d 1036] |
| April 24, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Floyd Johnson, Appellant. |
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Barbara J. Davies of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
John J. Flynn, District Attorney, Buffalo (Matthew B. Powers of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell P. Buscaglia,A.J.), rendered April 11, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guiltyof manslaughter in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty ofmanslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]), defendantcontends that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea onthe ground that defense counsel coerced him into pleading guilty (see generally People v Gast,114 AD3d 1270, 1271 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1198 [2014]).We disagree.
" 'In the absence of some evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in theinducement of the plea, the decision whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a plea ofguilty rests solely within the court's discretion' " (People v Anderson, 63 AD3d1617, 1618 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 858 [2009]). Additionally," 'the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rest[s] largely in the discretionof the Judge to whom the motion is made and a hearing will be granted only in rareinstances' " (People vManor, 27 NY3d 1012, 1013 [2016]). Here, the court granted defendant ahearing on his motion, and thus the court was entitled to decide the motion by resolvingany issues of credibility that arose therein (see People v Henderson, 148 AD3d 1779, 1780 [4th Dept2017]). We conclude that, based on the testimony adduced at the hearing, the court didnot abuse its discretion in determining that defense counsel had not coerced defendantinto entering his guilty plea such that the plea was not knowingly, intelligently, andvoluntarily entered (see generally Gast, 114 AD3d at 1271).
Although we agree with defendant that his purported waiver of the right to appeal isinvalid (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 564-568 [2019]), we reject defendant's contentions that the court abused itsdiscretion in denying him youthful offender status (see generally People v Randleman, 60 AD3d 1358, 1358[4th Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 919 [2009]), and that his sentence is undulyharsh and severe. Present—Smith, J.P., Carni, NeMoyer, Curran and Bannister,JJ.