People v. Cance

• Decision Date: 09 November 1989
• Citation: 547 N.Y.S.2d 702,155 A.D.2d 764
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Allesandro CANCE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 702

547 N.Y.S.2d 702

155 A.D.2d 764

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Allesandro CANCE, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

Nov. 9, 1989.

Daniel Kevin Lalor, Dist. Atty., Valerie Friedlander, Executive, Albany, for respondent.

E. Stewart Jones (David J. Taffany, of counsel), Troy, for appellant.

Before MAHONEY, P.J., and CASEY, WEISS, LEVINE and HARVEY, JJ.

WEISS, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Greene County (Fromer, J.), rendered January 24, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

On March 9, 1988, a Grand Jury charged defendant in indictment No. 88-110-A with five crimes involving weapons, possession of controlled substances and use of drug paraphernalia. A second indictment (No. 88-110-B), returned on the same date, charged defendant with three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance. Defendant pleaded guilty to single counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain in full satisfaction of both indictments, which included an agreed-upon sentence to two concurrent prison terms of 5 to 15 years as well as a waiver of defendant's right to appeal the conviction on indictment No. 87-110-B. At sentencing, defendant's new attorney requested leave to withdraw the guilty plea. County Court denied the request and this appeal ensued.

Defendant has raised three arguments. Initially, we find merit in defendant's challenge to the validity of his waiver of the right to appeal regarding the second indictment. There is no indication that County Court specifically discussed the waiver of the right to appeal with defendant or that he understood the nature, terms and effect upon him. The record being devoid of this required colloquy, the waiver must be deemed invalid (see, People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022).

Defendant's contention that County Court erred in denying his application to withdraw his plea is not persuasive. Clearly, permission to withdraw a guilty plea rests solely within the trial court's discretion (CPL 220.60[3]; People v. Kelsch, 96 A.D.2d 677, 466 N.Y.S.2d 535; People v. Gibson, 84 A.D.2d 885, 444 N.Y.S.2d 762), and refusal to permit withdrawal does not constitute an abuse of that discretion unless there is some evidence or claim of innocence, fraud or mistake in inducing the plea (People v. Randolph, 78 A.D.2d 566, 431 N.Y.S.2d 734). Defendant has not made these required claims. Instead he has challenged the adequacy of the plea allocution, contending that the plea was not voluntary, knowing and intelligent, and that he was denied effective representation of counsel. We disagree and reject each contention. There was an extensive and thorough allocution in which defendant unreservedly acknowledged that he understood the charges and the significance of his plea; he stated that it was voluntary and without coercion or inducement, that he was satisfied with retained counsel who had replaced his initial attorneys and that he understood he would receive a compromise of the charges against him; he was also told the possible sentences facing him (see, People v. Kennedy, 141 A.D.2d 975, 977, 530 N.Y.S.2d 854 lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 1046, 534 N.Y.S.2d 946, 531 N.E.2d 666). His admission of both possession and the sale of cocaine provided a sufficient predicate for accepting the plea (see, People v. La Boy, 152 A.D.2d 866, 544 N.Y.S.2d 505; People v. Quick, 146 A.D.2d 815, 538 N.Y.S.2d 475 lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 1020, 541 N.Y.S.2d 775, 539 N.E.2d 603). Defendant's factual recitation and responses to the questions from County Court established that he was fully aware of what was occurring and what he was doing (see, People v. Bruno, 147 A.D.2d 490, 537 N.Y.S.2d 588). There is nothing to indicate that the plea was improvident, involuntary or unknowingly made (see, People v. Robideau, 133 A.D.2d 903, 520 N.Y.S.2d 275, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 902, 527 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 523 N.E.2d 318).

Nor do we find merit in defendant's argument that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in his agreement to plead guilty. While his initial attorneys may perhaps not have been as thorough as desired, they were...