People v. Haffiz

• Decision Date: 12 October 2010
• Citation: 909 N.Y.S.2d 490,77 A.D.3d 767
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Feoid HAFFIZ, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

909 N.Y.S.2d 490

77 A.D.3d 767

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Feoid HAFFIZ, appellant.

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

Oct. 12, 2010.

Nathaniel E. Burney, Garden City, N.Y. (Bruce Barket of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael Blakey of counsel; Gregory Zak on the brief), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, RANDALL T. ENG and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), rendered January 9, 2009, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

"The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously-entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court" ( People v. Pooler, 58 A.D.3d 757, 757, 871 N.Y.S.2d 707; see People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797; People v. Ford, 44 A.D.3d 1070, 1070, 844 N.Y.S.2d 400; People v. Mann, 32 A.D.3d 865, 821 N.Y.S.2d 616;People v. Kucharczyk, 15 A.D.3d 595, 790 N.Y.S.2d 522), "and this determination generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion" ( People v. Pooler, 58 A.D.3d at 757, 871 N.Y.S.2d 707; see People v. Ford, 44 A.D.3d at 1070, 844 N.Y.S.2d 400; People v. DeLeon, 40 A.D.3d 1008, 837 N.Y.S.2d 189). "Generally, a plea of guilty may not be withdrawn absent some evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in its inducement" ( People v. Smith, 54 A.D.3d 879, 880, 863 N.Y.S.2d 818). "Only in rare instances will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing upon a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty" ( id.).

Here, the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered his plea of guilty ( see generally People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242, 244-245, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081; People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 16-17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170; People v. Rhodes, 62 A.D.3d 815, 816, 878 N.Y.S.2d 773). The defendant's contentions to the contrary are belied by the record ( see People v. Miranda, 67 A.D.3d 709, 710, 886 N.Y.S.2d 890; People v. Palmer, 29 A.D.3d 606, 606, 815 N.Y.S.2d 129). In light of the fact that the defendant specifically stated at the plea allocution that he knew that, by pleading guilty, he was giving up or waiving any defenses he may have and that his attorney had explained to him such defenses, including agency and entrapment, as well as the fact that he stated in his affidavit that he had discussed his alleged entrapment defense with his attorney prior to entering his plea of guilty, he cannot now be heard to complain that he did not make a knowing and voluntary waiver of those defenses ( see People v. Scotti, 142 A.D.2d 616, 617, 530 N.Y.S.2d 271). The defendant's claim that his plea was the product of ineffective assistance of counsel was belied by his acknowledgment at the plea proceeding that he was satisfied with the representation of his attorney ( see People v. Cobb, 19 A.D.3d 506, 506, 798 N.Y.S.2d 477; People v. Weekes, 289 A.D.2d 599, 735 N.Y.S.2d 815; People v. Bristol, 273 A.D.2d 248, 249, 709 N.Y.S.2d 836). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the record does not establish that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, and was entitled to withdraw his...