People v. Leach

• Decision Date: 11 July 2014
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05267,119 A.D.3d 1429,989 N.Y.S.2d 761
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raymond L. LEACH, Jr., Also known as Raymond L. Leach, Defendant–Appellant.

119 A.D.3d 1429
989 N.Y.S.2d 761
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05267

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Raymond L. LEACH, Jr., Also known as Raymond L. Leach, Defendant–Appellant.

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

July 11, 2014.

[989 N.Y.S.2d 762]

The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Nicholas P. Difonzo of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51[b][vi] ), defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered and, thus, that County Court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. We reject that contention. “Permission to withdraw a guilty plea rests solely within the court's discretion ..., and refusal to permit withdrawal does not constitute an abuse of discretion unless there is some evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in inducing the plea” ( People v. Robertson, 255 A.D.2d 968, 968, 681 N.Y.S.2d 919,lv. denied92 N.Y.2d 1053, 685 N.Y.S.2d 431, 708 N.E.2d 188;see People v. Zimmerman, 100 A.D.3d 1360, 1361, 953 N.Y.S.2d 427,lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 1015, 960 N.Y.S.2d 359, 984 N.E.2d 334). Here, we perceive no abuse of discretion.

[989 N.Y.S.2d 763]

We conclude that “[d]efendant's contention that he was pressured into accepting the plea is belied by his statements during the plea proceedings” ( People v. Garner, 86 A.D.3d 955, 955, 926 N.Y.S.2d 796;see generally Zimmerman, 100 A.D.3d at 1361–1362, 953 N.Y.S.2d 427). We further conclude that, “[t]o the extent that defendant contends that defense counsel was ineffective because he coerced defendant into pleading guilty, that contention is [also] belied by defendant's statement during the plea colloquy that the plea was not the result of any ... coercion” ( People v. Campbell, 62 A.D.3d 1265, 1266, 878 N.Y.S.2d 537,lv. denied13 N.Y.3d 795, 887 N.Y.S.2d 544, 916 N.E.2d 439).

Defendant contends that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary because the court failed to advise him of the potential periods of incarceration for an enhanced sentence based upon a postplea arrest, but he failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction...