People v. Kazimer

Citation210 A.D.3d 1109,178 N.Y.S.3d 780
Decision Date30 November 2022
Docket Number2019–13008,Ind. No. 46/18
Parties The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Michael J. KAZIMER, appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, NY, for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Anna K. Diehn of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, WILLIAM G. FORD, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Peter M. Forman, J.), rendered October 31, 2019, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree and criminal contempt in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant entered a plea of guilty to criminal contempt in the first degree and criminal contempt in the second degree. Prior to sentencing, he moved to withdraw his plea of guilty. The County Court denied the motion without a hearing and imposed sentence. The defendant appeals.

"The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court and generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion" ( People v. Jamison, 197 A.D.3d 569, 570, 151 N.Y.S.3d 694 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPL 220.60[3] ; People v. Torres, 192 A.D.3d 831, 832, 143 N.Y.S.3d 102 ). "In general, ‘such a motion must be premised upon some evidence of possible innocence or of fraud, mistake, coercion or involuntariness in the taking of the plea’ " ( People v. Hollmond, 191 A.D.3d 120, 136, 135 N.Y.S.3d 449, quoting People v. De Jesus, 199 A.D.2d 529, 530, 606 N.Y.S.2d 255 ). "When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry ‘rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made’ and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances" ( People v. Brown, 14 N.Y.3d 113, 116, 897 N.Y.S.2d 674, 924 N.E.2d 782, quoting People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 ; see People v. Hollman, 197 A.D.3d 484, 484, 151 N.Y.S.3d 158 ).

Here, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. Reviewing the record as a whole and the circumstances surrounding the entry of the plea (see People v. Sougou, 26 N.Y.3d 1052, 1055, 23 N.Y.S.3d 121, 44 N.E.3d 196 ), we conclude that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v. Hollman, 197 A.D.3d at 484–485, 151 N.Y.S.3d 158 ; People v. Duart, 144 A.D.3d 1173, 1175, 41 N.Y.S.3d 747 ). The defendant's assertions in support of his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty were unsubstantiated and contradicted by the record of the plea proceeding (see People v. Haffiz, 19 N.Y.3d 883, 884, 951 N.Y.S.2d 690, 976 N.E.2d 216 ; People v. Turner, 195 A.D.3d 953, 954, 146 N.Y.S.3d 510 ; People v. Abreu, 184 A.D.3d 656, 656, 123 N.Y.S.3d 845 ).

The County Court properly determined that the defendant violated certain conditions of his interim probation and properly imposed the alternative sentence of a term of imprisonment. A sentencing court faced with an allegation that a defendant violated a condition of a plea agreement must conduct an inquiry sufficient to satisfy itself that there is a legitimate basis for such a finding (see People v. Fiammegta, 14 N.Y.3d 90, 98, 896 N.Y.S.2d 735, 923 N.E.2d 1123 ; People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702, 713, 594 N.Y.S.2d 683, 610 N.E.2d 356 ; People v. Mays, 181 A.D.3d 874, 875, 119 N.Y.S.3d 883 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's determination that he violated the conditions of his interim probation was supported by sufficient reliable and accurate information (see People v. Mays, 181 A.D.3d at 875, 119 N.Y.S.3d 883 ; People v. Rollins, 50 A.D.3d 1535,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People v. Johns
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 30, 2022
    ...the defendant threw his gun into the bushes and fled to Maryland, where he was subsequently apprehended. Following trial, the jury found 210 A.D.3d 1109 the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. There is no merit to the def......
  • People v. Kazimer
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 27, 2023
    ...Opinion MOTION DECISION Cannataro, J. Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 2d Dept: 210 A.D.3d 1109 ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT