People v. Alfieri

• Decision Date: 04 February 1994
• Citation: 201 A.D.2d 935,610 N.Y.S.2d 904
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eric J. ALFIERI, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 904

610 N.Y.S.2d 904

201 A.D.2d 935

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eric J. ALFIERI, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department.

Feb. 4, 1994.

Donald Thompson, Rochester, for appellant.

Thomas E. Moran by Melvin Bressler, Geneseo, for respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that defendant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present the grounds for his withdrawal application and no evidentiary hearing was required (see, People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 525, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332; People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544; People v. McNair [appeal No. 1], 186 A.D.2d 1089, 590 N.Y.S.2d 789, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 1028, 592 N.Y.S.2d 678, 607 N.E.2d 825; People v. Croskery, 139 A.D.2d 970, 971, 529 N.Y.S.2d 49). Additionally, the record establishes that defendant was not deprived of his fundamental right to be present at all material stages of the proceedings when he was excluded from a side-bar conference at which the court and counsel discussed the procedure that the court would follow when it considered the motion of defendant to withdraw his guilty plea (see generally, People v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247, 590 N.Y.S.2d 33, 604 N.E.2d 95, rearg denied 81 N.Y.2d 759, 594 N.Y.S.2d 720, 610 N.E.2d 393; People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656, 660, 584 N.Y.S.2d 761, 595 N.E.2d 836). The side-bar conference did not involve "factual matters about which defendant might have peculiar knowledge that would be useful in advancing the defendant's or countering the People's position" (People v. Dokes, supra, at 660, 584 N.Y.S.2d 761, 595 N.E.2d 836).

Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. Contrary to defendant's argument, the record demonstrates that defense counsel forcefully articulated the grounds for defendant's motion seeking leave to withdraw defendant's guilty plea (see, People v. Glasper, 151 A.D.2d 692, 693, 542 N.Y.S.2d 747).

The record shows that defendant was advised of his rights and that his Alford plea (see, North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162) was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered with a full understanding of its consequences (see, People v. Friedman, 39 N.Y.2d 463, 466, 384 N.Y.S.2d 408, 348 N.E.2d 883; People v. Spencer [appeal No. 1], 185 A.D.2d 695, 587 N.Y.S.2d 239, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 977, 591 N.Y.S.2d 146, 605 N.E.2d 882; People v. Parish, 182 A.D.2d 1104, 582 N.Y.S.2d 886, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 836, 587 N.Y.S.2d 920, 600 N.E.2d 647). Finally, the prosecutor placed on the record the proof that the People intended to offer at trial and that...