People v. Walker

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: People v. Walker, 2014 NY Slip Op 1052, 114 A.D.3d 1257, 980 N.Y.S.2d 216 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
• Decision Date: 14 February 2014
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Calvin WALKER, Defendant–Appellant.

114 A.D.3d 1257

980 N.Y.S.2d 216

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 01052

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Calvin WALKER, Defendant–Appellant.

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

Feb. 14, 2014.

Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Janet C. Somes of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, and SCONIERS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30[4] ) and robbery in the first degree (§ 160.15[4] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in failing to ask him at sentencing why he wished to withdraw his guilty plea. We reject that contention. Where, as here, “a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made” ( People v. Brown, 14 N.Y.3d 113, 116, 897 N.Y.S.2d 674, 924 N.E.2d 782 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Mitchell, 21 N.Y.3d 964, 966, 970 N.Y.S.2d 919, 993 N.E.2d 405). “Only in the rare instance will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing; often a limited interrogation by the court will suffice” ( People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544). “The defendant should be afforded reasonable opportunity to present his contentions” ( id.;see People v. Rossborough, 105 A.D.3d 1332, 1333, 963 N.Y.S.2d 494,lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 1045, 972 N.Y.S.2d 542, 995 N.E.2d 858;People v. Zimmerman, 100 A.D.3d 1360, 1362, 953 N.Y.S.2d 427,lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 1015, 960 N.Y.S.2d 359, 984 N.E.2d 334).

Here, during the plea colloquy, defendant admitted his involvement in the crimes in question, which involved a home invasion robbery and a separate armed robbery committed the following day, and waived his right to appeal. In return, the court promised to sentence defendant to concurrent determinate terms of imprisonment of 18 years, plus a period of postrelease supervision. At sentencing, however, defense counsel stated that defendant wished to withdraw his plea, and that she had instructed him that a plea withdrawal was something that he needed to raise with the court. The court turned to defendant, who said “Yes. I withdraw my plea.” The court asked defendant whether there was anything else he wished to say, whereupon defendant answered “No.” The court then denied defendant's “request” to withdraw his plea and asked him if he wished to say anything before the negotiated sentence was imposed. Defendant availed himself of that opportunity, stating that he had not received any “information” about his...