| People v White |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 03929 [185 AD3d 842] |
| July 15, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Erik White, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Cynthia Colt of counsel), for appellant, and appellant prose.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Jill Oziemblewski, andJodi L. Mandel of counsel; Robert Ho on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Danny K.Chun, J.), rendered October 17, 2016, convicting him of rape in the second degree (8 counts),criminal sexual act in the second degree (16 counts), endangering the welfare of a child, andcriminal contempt in the second degree (3 counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant pleaded guilty to rape in the second degree (8 counts), criminal sexual act inthe second degree (16 counts), endangering the welfare of a child, and criminal contempt in thesecond degree (3 counts). Before the Supreme Court imposed sentence, the defendant moved towithdraw his plea of guilty. The court denied the motion without conducting a hearing.
A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, andits determination generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion(see CPL 220.60 [3]; People vBalbuenatorres, 179 AD3d 828, 829 [2020]). When a defendant moves to withdraw aguilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rests largely in the discretion of theJudge or Justice to whom the motion is made and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances(see People v Manor, 27 NY3d1012, 1013-1014 [2016]; People v Balbuenatorres, 179 AD3d at 829). Here, therecord supports the Supreme Court's determination that the defendant's plea of guilty was enteredknowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Balbuenatorres, 179 AD3d at829).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
The defendant's contention in his pro se supplemental brief that he was deprived of theeffective assistance of counsel cannot be reviewed on direct appeal because it is based on mattersoutside the record on appeal (see Peoplev Shabazz, 174 AD3d 824, 825 [2019]; People v Stevens, 162 AD3d 1077, 1078 [2018]). The appropriatevehicle for review of such a contention is a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see People vShabazz, 174 AD3d at 825; People v Stevens, 162 AD3d at 1078).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are eitherforfeited by his guilty plea or without merit. Balkin, J.P., Duffy, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ.,concur.