People v. Smith

• Decision Date: 24 April 2013
• Citation: 105 A.D.3d 1065,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02769,963 N.Y.S.2d 402
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Rodney SMITH, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

105 A.D.3d 1065

963 N.Y.S.2d 402

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02769

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Rodney SMITH, appellant.

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

April 24, 2013.

Joseph R. Faraguna, Sag Harbor, N.Y., for appellant.

Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Andrea M. DiGregorio and Victoria Rosner of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SHERI S. ROMAN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Gulotta, Jr., J.), rendered April 27, 2012, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that he was denied due process because the Supreme Court failed to make a sufficient inquiry into whether he violated the terms of a cooperation agreement is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Valencia, 3 N.Y.3d 714, 715–716, 786 N.Y.S.2d 374, 819 N.E.2d 990). In any event, since the defendant admitted that he failed to perform certain acts, in violation of the cooperation agreement, no hearing was required ( see People v. Valencia, 3 N.Y.3d at 715–716, 786 N.Y.S.2d 374, 819 N.E.2d 990;People v. Shih–Siang Shawn Liao, 103 A.D.3d 757, 959 N.Y.S.2d 447). Thus, the defendant, who failed to fulfill his obligations under the cooperation agreement and who was fully aware of the consequences of his failure, was not entitled to withdraw his plea of guilty on the ground that he did not receive the benefit of the cooperation agreement ( see People v. Heffelfinger, 19 A.D.3d 508, 509, 798 N.Y.S.2d 475;People v. DeBoue, 299 A.D.2d 422, 423, 749 N.Y.S.2d 282;People v. Kloczkowski, 226 A.D.2d 743, 642 N.Y.S.2d 35).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying,without a hearing, the defendant's pro se motions to withdraw his plea of guilty on the grounds that he was innocent and that evidence discovered after his plea was entered allegedly revealed that the controlled substance analysis performed by the Forensic Evidence Bureau of the Nassau County Police Department was deficient. The record supports the Supreme Court's determination that the defendant's plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently ( see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646;People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 16–17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170). The defendant's post-plea assertion that he was innocent because the substance he sold was not heroin contradicted the admissions he made under oath at his plea allocution, and was insufficient to warrant a hearing or withdrawal of his plea ( see People v. Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55, 57, 323 N.Y.S.2d 825, 272 N.E.2d 329;People v. Dazzo, 92 A.D.3d 796, 797, 938 N.Y.S.2d 446;People v. Douglas, 83 A.D.3d 1092, 1093, 921 N.Y.S.2d 324;People v. Shaw, 238 A.D.2d 360, 656 N.Y.S.2d 920). Furthermore, any misapprehension by the defendant as to the nature of the evidence against him was not a sufficient ground to vacate his plea ( see Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747;People v. Jones, 44 N.Y.2d 76,...