People v. Bravo

• Citation: 72 A.D.3d 697,899 N.Y.S.2d 280
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Renee Paul BRAVO, appellant.
• Decision Date: 06 April 2010
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

899 N.Y.S.2d 280
72 A.D.3d 697

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Renee Paul BRAVO, appellant.

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

April 6, 2010.

899 N.Y.S.2d 280

James D. Licata, New City, N.Y., (Lois Cappelletti of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y., (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel), for respondent.

STEVEN W. FISHER, J.P., JOSEPH COVELLO, RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

72 A.D.3d 697

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Bartlett, J.), rendered July 20, 2006, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

72 A.D.3d 698

A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the sentencing court ( see CPL 220.60[3]; People v. Villalobos, 71 A.D.3d 924, 895 N.Y.S.2d 867 [2d Dept. 2010];

899 N.Y.S.2d 281

People v. Hearns, 70 A.D.3d 856, 892 N.Y.S.2d 907). Here, the County Court's denial of the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty was not an improvident exercise of discretion ( see People v. Massey, 70 A.D.3d 722, 892 N.Y.S.2d 888; People v. Rivera, 65 A.D.3d 1265, 885 N.Y.S.2d 427; People v. Perazzo, 65 A.D.3d 1058, 1059, 886 N.Y.S.2d 43).

The record reveals that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent ( see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170; People v. Mann, 32 A.D.3d 865, 866, 821 N.Y.S.2d 616). His contention that the plea was coerced by the County Court and by defense counsel is without merit. The County Court did not threaten to sentence the defendant to the maximum term upon a conviction after trial, but only informed him of his sentence exposure in that event. Such remarks are informative, not coercive ( see People v. Robinson, 64 A.D.3d 1248, 881 N.Y.S.2d 356; People v. Pagan, 297 A.D.2d 582, 747 N.Y.S.2d 174). Although the County Court misstated the defendant's sentencing exposure, we find, under the circumstances here, including the defendant's age and the statutory provisions governing multiple consecutive sentences ( see Penal Law § 70.30), that the misstatement could not have influenced the defendant's decision to plead guilty ( see People v. Garcia, 92 N.Y.2d 869, 870-871, 677 N.Y.S.2d 772, 700 N.E.2d 311; People v. Bruchanan, 37 A.D.3d 169, 828...