| People v Turner |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 04037 [195 AD3d 953] |
| June 23, 2021 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jamel Turner, Appellant. |
Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, NY, for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County(Fernando Camacho, J.), both rendered August 6, 2019, convicting him of criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the third degree under indictment No. 767/18, and assault in the firstdegree (six counts), aggravated vehicular homicide with a suspended license (five counts), andoperating a motor vehicle impaired by drugs in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law§ 1192 (4) under indictment No. 771/18, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposingsentences.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant contends that his pleas were not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent becausehe was not advised until after his allocution that his sentences would include a period ofpostrelease supervision. The defendant's contention is unpreserved for appellate review becausethe defendant failed to move to withdraw his pleas on that ground or otherwise raise this issueprior to the imposition of the sentences (see People v Murray, 15 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2010]; People v Bush, 185 AD3d 1048[2020]). In any event, the defendant's assertion that he was not advised until after his allocutionthat his sentences would include a period of postrelease supervision is belied by the record, andtherefore, his contention is without merit.
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 vStephensbush, 172 AD3d 1108, 1108 [2019]). When a defendant moves to withdraw aplea of guilty, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rests largely in the discretion ofthe court, and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances (see People v Manor, 27 NY3d 1012, 1013-1014 [2016]; People v Caputo, 163 AD3d 983,984 [2018]). When a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty "is patently insufficient on its face, acourt may simply deny the motion without making any inquiry" (People v Mitchell, 21 NY3d 964,967 [2013]).
Here, the record supports the County Court's determination that the defendant's pleas ofguilty were entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Stephensbush,172 AD3d at 1109). The defendant's postplea assertion that his pleas were involuntary becausehis [*2]attorney failed to adequately consult with him is belied bythe record and contradicted the statements he made under oath during his plea allocution.Accordingly, the defendant's motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty was properly denied withoutfurther inquiry (see People vBalbuenatorres, 179 AD3d 828, 829 [2020]; People v Massey, 70 AD3d 722, 723 [2010]). Rivera, J.P.,Hinds-Radix, Miller and Wooten, JJ., concur.