Opinion
5567 SCI 1751/15
01-30-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Terry CICIO, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Samuel E. Steinbock–Pratt of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Jennifer L. Watson of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Samuel E. Steinbock–Pratt of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Jennifer L. Watson of counsel), for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Gische, Mazzarelli, Kern, Singh, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Marc J. Whiten, J.), rendered January 4, 2016, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.
The record sufficiently establishes that defendant's waiver of indictment and prosecution by superior court information satisfied the requirement that a "criminal court has held the defendant for the action of a grand jury" ( CPL 195.10 ). The record demonstrates that upon defendant's waiver of the case to the grand jury (see CPL 180.30[1] ), the court, sitting as a hybrid part, transferred the case from its Criminal Court capacity to its Supreme Court capacity, thereby effectively ordering defendant held for grand jury action (see People v. Yunga , 122 A.D.3d 951, 997 N.Y.S.2d 470 [2d Dept. 2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 993, 32 N.E.3d 973 [2015] ; People v. Davenport , 106 A.D.3d 1197, 964 N.Y.S.2d 759 [3d 2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 1073, 974 N.Y.S.2d 322, 997 N.E.2d 147 [2013] ).
The court properly exercised its discretion in summarily denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea made pro se while represented by counsel (see People v. Frederick , 45 N.Y.2d 520, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332 [1978] ). "[T]he nature and extent of the fact-finding procedures on such motions rest largely in the discretion of the court" ( People v. Fiumefreddo , 82 N.Y.2d 536, 544, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 [1993] ). Defendant submitted only a generalized standard form motion without inserting any specific allegations, and there was nothing to cast doubt on the voluntariness of the plea.