People v. Anderson

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: MARK C. DILLON
• Citation: 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05832,98 A.D.3d 524,949 N.Y.S.2d 207
• Decision Date: 01 August 2012
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. James ANDERSON, appellant.

98 A.D.3d 524
949 N.Y.S.2d 207
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05832

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
James ANDERSON, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Aug. 1, 2012.

Maureen Galvin Dwyer, Northport, N.Y., for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael J. Miller of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Lozito, J.), rendered April 22, 2010, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree and attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the sentencing court, and its determination generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise

[949 N.Y.S.2d 208]

of discretion ( see People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797;People v. Dazzo, 92 A.D.3d 796, 938 N.Y.S.2d 446;People v. Caruso, 88 A.D.3d 809, 930 N.Y.S.2d 668). “When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry ‘rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made’ and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances” ( People v. Brown, 14 N.Y.3d 113, 116, 897 N.Y.S.2d 674, 924 N.E.2d 782, quoting People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544).

Here, the record supports the County Court's determination that the defendant's plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently ( see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646). The defendant's postplea assertions that he was coerced and entrapped into pleading guilty are belied by his statements under oath at his plea allocution, and were insufficient to warrant withdrawal of his plea or a hearing ( see People v. Dazzo, 92 A.D.3d at 796–797, 938 N.Y.S.2d 446;People v. Caruso, 88 A.D.3d at 810, 930 N.Y.S.2d 668).

The defendant's contention that the County Court improperly sentenced him without ordering an updated presentence report is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Gambichler, 25 A.D.3d 722, 723, 807 N.Y.S.2d 310), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our...