People v. Corines, 2019–03642

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Citation: 204 A.D.3d 827,166 N.Y.S.3d 260
• Docket Number: 2019–03642,Ind. No. 18–00526
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Peter CORINES, appellant.
• Decision Date: 13 April 2022

204 A.D.3d 827
166 N.Y.S.3d 260

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Peter CORINES, appellant.

2019–03642
Ind. No. 18–00526

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

Submitted—February 8, 2022
April 13, 2022

166 N.Y.S.3d 261

Arza Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Miriam E. Rocah, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (William C. Milaccio and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ.

166 N.Y.S.3d 262

DECISION & ORDER

204 A.D.3d 827

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barry E. Warhit, J.), rendered March 28, 2019, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, attempted grand larceny in the second degree, and identity theft in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates

204 A.D.3d 828

that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 564–565, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 ; People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 341–342, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Williams, ––– A.D.3d ––––, 160 N.Y.S.3d 899, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 01468 [2d Dept.] ). However, the defendant's contentions that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent and that the Supreme Court was without authority to issue an order of protection on behalf of the victim's sister survive a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Lopez, 199 A.D.3d 704, 153 N.Y.S.3d 877 ; People v. Glover, 186 A.D.3d 621, 126 N.Y.S.3d 670 ).

Regarding the plea of guilty, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, without a hearing, his motion to withdraw the plea (see People v. Lopez, 200 A.D.3d 717, 154 N.Y.S.3d 874 ). " ‘Generally, a plea of guilty may not be withdrawn absent some evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in its inducement’ " ( People v. Jackson, 170 A.D.3d 1040, 1040, 96 N.Y.S.3d 330, quoting People v. Rodriguez, 142 A.D.3d 1189, 1190, 38 N.Y.S.3d 224 ). On a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rests largely in the discretion of the court (see People v. Jackson, 170 A.D.3d at 1040, 96 N.Y.S.3d 330 ), and only in rare instances will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing (see People v. Richards, 186 A.D.3d 1411, 128 N.Y.S.3d 871 ; People v. Lazard, 185 A.D.3d 964, 125 N.Y.S.3d 887 ; People v. Bhuiyan, 181 A.D.3d 699, 120 N.Y.S.3d 400 ). Here, the record as a whole and the circumstances surrounding the entry of the plea reveal that the defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v. McMullin, 186 A.D.3d 857, 858, 127 N.Y.S.3d 788 ).

Furthermore, the defendant was not entitled to withdraw his plea of guilty based on his subsequent unsupported claim of innocence, where the plea was voluntarily made with the advice of counsel following an appraisal of all relevant factors (see People v. Fisher, 28 N.Y.3d 717, 726, 49 N.Y.S.3d 344, 71 N.E.3d 932 ; People v. Haffiz, 19 N.Y.3d 883, 951 N.Y.S.2d 690, 976 N.E.2d 216 ; People v. Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55, 323 N.Y.S.2d 825, 272 N.E.2d 329 ). The plea colloquy reveals that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily admitted the factual allegations of the crimes and made no protest of innocence (see People v. Haffiz, 19 N.Y.3d at 884–885, 951 N.Y.S.2d 690, 976 N.E.2d 216 ). Although the defendant claims that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because the term...