People v. Zaia

• Decision Date: 30 March 1992
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Carol ZAIA, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 212

582 N.Y.S.2d 212

181 A.D.2d 931

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Carol ZAIA, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 30, 1992.

Eugene A. Cordaro, Mineola, for appellant.

Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Bruce E. Whitney and Alexis Kriedman, of counsel), for respondent.

Before HARWOOD, J.P., and EIBER, RITTER and COPERTINO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered March 21, 1990, convicting her of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw her guilty plea (see, People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332; People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544; People v. James, 159 A.D.2d 723, 724, 553 N.Y.S.2d 443; People v. Brownlee, 158 A.D.2d 610, 551 N.Y.S.2d 581). The defendant's belated claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is flatly refuted by the record of the plea proceeding in which she knowingly and voluntarily made a complete and detailed plea allocution in the presence of competent counsel--with whom the defendant had expressed satisfaction at the time of the plea--after the court had fully apprised the defendant of the consequences of her plea (see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170; People v. Williams, 178 A.D.2d 570, 577 N.Y.S.2d 656; People v. White, 165 A.D.2d 820, 821, 560 N.Y.S.2d 397; People v. James, supra; People v. Brownlee, supra). The record further shows that the defendant was afforded an ample opportunity at sentencing to advance her claim and fully availed herself, through counsel, of that opportunity, by delivering lengthy and detailed arguments in support of the motion (see, People v. Frederick, supra, 45 N.Y.2d at 525, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332; People v. Williams, supra; People v. White, supra, 165 A.D.2d at 821, 560 N.Y.S.2d 397; People v. James, supra, 159 A.D.2d at 725, 553 N.Y.S.2d 443; People v. Hughes, 156 A.D.2d 130, 548 N.Y.S.2d 176). Thus, under the circumstances, no further inquiry was necessary.