People v. Singletary

• Decision Date: 29 May 2008
• Docket Number: 100554.
• Citation: 51 A.D.3d 1334,2008 NY Slip Op 04796,858 N.Y.S.2d 483
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DWIGHT SINGLETARY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

51 A.D.3d 1334

858 N.Y.S.2d 483

2008 NY Slip Op 04796

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DWIGHT SINGLETARY, Appellant.

100554.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department.

Decided May 29, 2008.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), rendered February 9, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

KAVANAGH, J.

Defendant was charged in a five-count indictment with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts) and criminally using drug paraphernalia and thereafter pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree in full satisfaction thereof. Following County Court's denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, defendant was sentenced to four years in prison with two years of postrelease supervision. This appeal by defendant ensued.

Preliminarily, we reject defendant's assertion that County Court erred in summarily denying his motion to withdraw his plea based upon alleged coercion and ineffective assistance of counsel. "Generally, a guilty plea may not be withdrawn absent some evidence or claim of innocence, fraud or mistake in its inducement" (People v Lane, 1 AD3d 801, 802 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 742 [2004] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Carr, 288 AD2d 561 [2001]). To that end, the decision to permit withdrawal of a defendant's guilty plea is a matter committed to the trial court's sound discretion, and a hearing is required only where the record presents a genuine question of fact as to the plea's voluntariness (see People v De Fabritis, 296 AD2d 664 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 557 [2002]; see People v Vinals, 2 AD3d 1210 [2003]). Here, the record is devoid of any indication of fraud or innocence, and defendant's conclusory allegation of coercion is belied by the transcript of his plea allocution, wherein defendant plainly denied that he had been threatened or otherwise forced to plead guilty (see People v Nichols, 21 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 757 [2005]).

Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is equally unpersuasive. "In the context of a guilty plea, a defendant has been afforded meaningful representation when he or she receives an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel" (People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995] [citations omitted]; see People v Vinals, 2 AD3d at 1211). As County Court observed in denying defendant's motion, the plea negotiations occurred over a lengthy period of time during which various motions were made on defendant's behalf. Additionally, County Court questioned defendant at length regarding his opportunities to confer with counsel, and defendant unequivocally indicated that he had sufficient time to consult with counsel and was satisfied with counsel's representation. Finally, it is apparent from the record that counsel negotiated an advantageous plea to a reduced charge on defendant's behalf (see People v Adams, 31 AD3d 1063, 1066 [2006], lv...