People v. Peavy

• Decision Date: 08 March 1996
• Citation: 639 N.Y.S.2d 752,225 A.D.2d 1082
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. General PEAVY, Appellant.

Page 752

639 N.Y.S.2d 752

225 A.D.2d 1082

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. General PEAVY, Appellant.

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

March 8, 1996.

Edward J. Nowak by Stephen Bird, Rochester, for appellant.

Howard R. Relin by Alan Cruikshank, Rochester, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to rape in the first degree. We disagree. A motion to withdraw a guilty plea is addressed to the sound discretion of the court (see, CPL 220.60[3]; People v. De Jesus, 199 A.D.2d 529, 606 N.Y.S.2d 255). The record establishes that defendant was advised of his rights and that his Alford plea (see, North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162) was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered with a full understanding of its consequences (see, People v. Alfieri, 201 A.D.2d 935, 610 N.Y.S.2d 904, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 908, 614 N.Y.S.2d 390, 637 N.E.2d 281). Additionally, a generalized, unsubstantiated claim of innocence is not sufficient to warrant the vacatur of a plea of guilty (see, People v. De Jesus, supra, at 530, 606 N.Y.S.2d 255; People v. Carter, 191 A.D.2d 640, 595 N.Y.S.2d 219). Finally, the prosecutor placed on the record the proof that the People intended to offer at trial and that elaboration contained strong evidence of defendant's guilt (see, People v. Alfieri, supra, at 935-936, 610 N.Y.S.2d 904).

Judgment unanimously affirmed. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J.--Rape, 1st Degree.)

DENMAN, P.J., and LAWTON, WESLEY, BALIO and DAVIS, JJ., concur.