People v. Farley

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: People v. Farley, 34 AD3d 1229, 824 N.Y.S.2d 517, 2006 NY Slip Op 8401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
• Decision Date: 17 November 2006
• Docket Number: KA 05-00998.
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAVID C. FARLEY, Appellant.

34 A.D.3d 1229

824 N.Y.S.2d 517

2006 NY Slip Op 08401

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAVID C. FARLEY, Appellant.

KA 05-00998.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Fourth Department.

Decided November 17, 2006.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Livingston County (Joseph D. Valentino, J.), rendered December 3, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (two counts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (five counts).

It is hereby ordered that said appeal from the judgment insofar as it imposed sentence be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed (see People v Haywood, 203 AD2d 966 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 967 [1994]) and the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree (Penal Law § 220.43 [1]) and related offenses. We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw the plea without first conducting a hearing. "Only in the rare instance will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing [on a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty]; often a limited interrogation by the court will suffice" (People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The assertions of defendant, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that the plea was coerced, are belied...