Opinion
02-09-2024
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Beuford T. RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (TIMOTHY S. DAVIS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTAPPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (AMY N. WALENDZIAK OF COUNSEL),. FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Christopher S. Ciaccio, J.), rendered May 9, 2018. The judgment convicted defendant upon a plea of guilty of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree.
JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (TIMOTHY S. DAVIS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTAPPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (AMY N. WALENDZIAK OF COUNSEL),. FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: LINDLEY, J.P., MONTOUR, OGDEN, AND GREENWOOD, JJ. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.80 [1] [a]), defendant contends that County Court erred in summarily denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on his claims that he was innocent and that he was coerced into pleading guilty; Preliminarily; because that contention would survive even a valid waiver of the right to appeal, we need, not consider defendant’s challenge to the validity of the waiver (see People v. Burden, 217 A.D.3d 1422, 1422-1423, 190 N.Y.S.3d 767 [4th Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 950, 195 N.Y.S.3d 664, 217 N.E.3d 684 [2023]; People v. Truitt, 170 A.D.3d 1591, 1591-1592, 95 N.Y.S.3d 702 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1036, 102 N.Y.S.3d 535, 126 N.E.3d 185 [2019]; People v. Colon, 122 A.D.3d 1309, 1309-1310, 995 N.Y.S.2d 429 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1200, 16 N.Y.S.3d 522, 37 N.E.3d 1165 [2015]).
We reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in summarily denying the motion. Defendant’s motion was based on his conclusory and wholly unsubstantiated claims of coercion and innocence, which were belied by the plea colloquy in which defendant admitted his guilt and stated, inter alia, that he was fully advised of the consequences of the plea, that he was confident in his attorney’s abilities, and that he was not coerced into entering the plea (see People v. Fox, 204 A.D.3d 1452, 1453, 166 N.Y.S.3d 790 [4th Dept. 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 940, 177 N.Y.S.3d 532, 198 N.E.3d 775 [2022]; People v. Alexander, 203 A.D.3d 1569, 1570, 161 N.Y.S.3d 901 [4th Dept. 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1031, 169 N.Y.S.3d 210, 189 N.E.3d 317 [2022]; People v. Garcia, 203 A.D.3d 1585, 1586, 161 N.Y.S.3d 919 [4th Dept. 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1133, 172 N.Y.S.3d 868, 193 N.E.3d 533 [2022]). Inasmuch as the motion was "patently insufficient on its face," the court properly denied it without conducting a hearing (People v. Mitchell, 21 N.Y.3d 964, 967, 970 N.Y.S.2d 919, 993 N.E.2d 405 [2013]; see Burden, 217 A.D.3d at 1423, 190 N.Y.S.3d 767; People v. Harris, 206 A.D.3d 1711, 1711-1712, 169 N.Y.S.3d 441 [4th Dept. 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1188, 176 N.Y.S.3d 207, 197 N.E.3d 487 [2022]).
Finally, we note that the certificate of conviction does not reflect defendant’s status as a second felony offender, and it must be amended accordingly (see People v. Schlifke, 210 A.D.3d 1518, 1519, 178 N.Y.S.3d 351 [4th Dept. 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1080, 184 N.Y.S.3d 276, 277, 204 N.E.3d 1058, 1059 [2023]; People v. Southard, 163 A.D.3d 1461, 1462, 76 N.Y.S.3d 869 [4th Dept. 2018]).