People v. De Fabritis
| Decision Date | 11 July 2002 |
| Citation | 745 N.Y.S.2d 235,296 A.D.2d 664 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>MICHAEL DE FABRITIS, Appellant. |
In satisfaction of two separate indictments charging defendant with numerous crimes stemming from his repeated domestic abuse of his former girlfriend (hereinafter the victim) and violations of related orders of protection, he entered a counseled, "no promise" plea of guilty to three counts of criminal contempt in the first degree and one count of assault in the third degree. He subsequently sought to withdraw his plea and obtain new counsel, claiming that he was dissatisfied with his counsel, Arthur Kahn, who was the fourth attorney to represent him in the matter, and that he did not fully understand the proceedings. County Court appointed yet another attorney, who moved to withdraw the guilty plea contending, inter alia, that, due to defendant's emotional state, he was coerced into pleading guilty by Kahn's statement that if he proceeded to trial, he would be convicted and receive a much harsher prison sentence. County Court denied the motion without a hearing, and thereafter sentenced defendant to a combination of concurrent and consecutive prison terms aggregating two to six years. Defendant appeals and we affirm.
We perceive no merit in defendant's various challenges to County Court's denial, without a hearing, of the motion to withdraw his plea. The decision to permit withdrawal of a guilty plea is a matter within the trial court's sound discretion, and a hearing is required only where the record presents a genuine question of fact as to its voluntariness (see, People v D'Adamo, 281 AD2d 751, 752). Where the grounds adduced are "facially without merit," no evidentiary hearing is required (People v Rudenko, 243 AD2d 588, 588, lv denied 91 NY2d 879; see, People v Carr, 288 AD2d 561, 561-562). We reject defendant's claim that a hearing was required here to explore how his emotional state may have affected the voluntariness of his plea. In reaction to Kahn's statement that the proceedings were "of a deeply emotional nature to [defendant]," County Court questioned defendant extensively during the plea colloquy regarding his mental condition. Defendant answered that while his emotional state—apparently angry and depressed—may have led to commission of the offenses charged, he understood the criminal proceedings, was aware of the consequences of his plea and did not claim to be not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.
Also lacking in merit is defendant's argument that his assertion of innocence shortly after the plea allocution necessitated a hearing on his motion. Defendant's sworn statements during the plea colloquy reflect that he knowingly, voluntarily and candidly admitted committing the crimes. His subsequent protestation of innocence, unsupported by any evidence beyond his own affidavit, is insufficient to warrant a hearing on the issue (see, People v Batcher, 291 AD2d 581, 582; People v Anderson [Anderson-Fialkow], 270 AD2d 509, 510, lv denied 95 NY2d 792, 793; People v Gibson, 261 AD2d 710, 711). Similarly unpersuasive is defendant's argument that a hearing was required to assess his claim that Kahn fraudulently induced his guilty plea by misrepresenting the possible prison sentences. Despite having the assistance of substitute counsel and an opportunity to substantiate this claim, defendant again produced no evidence other than his own conclusory and self-serving affidavit (see, People v Carr, supra at 562). Although defendant now proffers a supporting affidavit of another person, we note that it is not part of the record on appeal and was drafted approximately one year after his sentencing, despite the apparent availability of the affiant at the time the motion was made.
D...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Shurock
...and a hearing is required only where the record presents a genuine question of fact as to its voluntariness” ( People v. De Fabritis, 296 A.D.2d 664, 664, 745 N.Y.S.2d 235 [2002], lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 557, 754 N.Y.S.2d 209, 784 N.E.2d 82 [2002] [citation omitted]; see People v. Russell, 79 ......
-
Williams v. Bradt
...These were appropriate considerations for the sentencing court under both state and federal law. See, e.g., People v. De Fabritis, 296 A.D.2d 664, 664 (3d Dept. 2002); United States v. Volpe, 224 F.3d 72, 75-76 (2d Cir. 2000). Petitioner's sentencing clearly was conducted in accordance with......
-
People v. Herringshaw
...1 A.D.3d 635, 636, 766 N.Y.S.2d 409 [2003], lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 742, 778 N.Y.S.2d 468, 810 N.E.2d 921 [2004]; People v. De Fabritis, 296 A.D.2d 664, 664, 745 N.Y.S.2d 235 [2002], lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 557, 754 N.Y.S.2d 209, 784 N.E.2d 82 [2002] ). Here, defendant's request to withdraw his pl......
-
People v. Phillips
...voluntariness' ” of the guilty plea ( People v. Atkinson, 58 A.D.3d 943, 943, 871 N.Y.S.2d 479 [2009], quoting People v. De Fabritis, 296 A.D.2d 664, 664, 745 N.Y.S.2d 235 [2002], lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 557, 754 N.Y.S.2d 209, 784 N.E.2d 82 [2002]; see People v. Greathouse, 62 A.D.3d 1212, 121......