People v. Manor

• Decision Date: 03 October 2014
• Docket Number: 1005 KA 11-02047.
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tyrone D. MANOR, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

121 A.D.3d 1581
993 N.Y.S.2d 424
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 06739

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent
v.
Tyrone D. MANOR, Defendant–Appellant.

1005 KA 11-02047.

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

Oct. 3, 2014.

993 N.Y.S.2d 425

Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Kimberly F. Duguay of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Robert Shoemaker of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM:

121 A.D.3d 1582

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1 ] ). We reject defendant's contention that County Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. “[A] court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea where the defendant's allegations in support of the motion are belied by the defendant's statements during the plea proceeding” (People v. Williams, 103 A.D.3d 1128, 1128, 958 N.Y.S.2d 826, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 915, 966 N.Y.S.2d 366, 988 N.E.2d 895 ; see People v. Wolf, 88 A.D.3d 1266, 1267, 930 N.Y.S.2d 382, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 863, 938 N.Y.S.2d 871, 962 N.E.2d 296 ; People v. McKoy, 60 A.D.3d 1374, 1374, 875 N.Y.S.2d 721, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 856, 881 N.Y.S.2d 668, 909 N.E.2d 591 ; People v. Beaty, 303 A.D.2d 965, 965, 755 N.Y.S.2d 911, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 559, 763 N.Y.S.2d 816, 795 N.E.2d 42 ). Here, defendant's claims that he was coerced by family members into pleading guilty, that he was intoxicated during the plea proceeding, and that he did not understand the nature of the plea or its consequences are belied by the record of the plea proceeding (see People v. Gast, 114 A.D.3d 1270, 1271, 980 N.Y.S.2d 221, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1198, 986 N.Y.S.2d 419, 9 N.E.3d 914 ; Wolf, 88 A.D.3d at 1267, 930 N.Y.S.2d 382 ; People v. Thomas, 72 A.D.3d 1483, 1484, 899 N.Y.S.2d 761 ). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion without a hearing. The court “afforded defendant the requisite ‘reasonable opportunity to present his contentions' in support of [his] motion ..., and the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that no further inquiry was necessary” (People v. Strasser, 83 A.D.3d 1411, 1411, 919 N.Y.S.2d 454, quoting People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 ; see Wolf, 88 A.D.3d at 1267–1268, 930 N.Y.S.2d 382 ).

To the extent that defendant contends that his statements during the plea colloquy negated the intent element of the crime or raised a possible justification defense that required the court to conduct further inquiry, we reject that contention. “Although the initial statements of defendant during the factual allocution may have negated the essential element of his intent to cause death, his further statements removed any doubt regarding that intent” (People v. Trinidad, 23 A.D.3d 1060, 1061, 804 N.Y.S.2d 876, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 760, 810 N.Y.S.2d 428, 843 N.E.2d 1168 ; see People v. Theall, 109 A.D.3d 1107, 1108, 971 N.Y.S.2d 753, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1159, 984 N.Y.S.2d 643, 7 N.E.3d 1131 ). Furthermore, “nothing [defendant] said [during the plea colloquy] raised the possibility of a viable justification...