People v. Sain

• Decision Date: 10 May 1999
• Citation: 691 N.Y.S.2d 64
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Joseph SAIN, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 64

691 N.Y.S.2d 64

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Joseph SAIN, appellant.

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

May 10, 1999.

Luis A. Medina, Hawthorne, N.Y., for appellant.

Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Christopher Michael Shaw and Maryanne Luciano of counsel), for respondent.

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., FRED T. SANTUCCI, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO and HOWARD MILLER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Ryan, J.), rendered April 18, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (2 counts), robbery in the second degree (3 counts), grand larceny in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree (18 counts), burglary in the first degree, and menacing in the second degree (2 counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The determination as to whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a previously-entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the sentencing court. Only in rare instances will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing upon a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty (see, CPL 220.60; People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 524, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332; People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544; People v. Santana, 176 A.D.2d 360, 574 N.Y.S.2d 593). The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea without conducting a hearing.

The defendant's contention that the indictment was jurisdictionally defective because the Grand Jury which heard the case voted an indictment after its term had expired is based on matters which are dehors the record.