Opinion
September 30, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.).
Ordered that Justice Harwood has been substituted for former Justice Brown (see, 22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]); and it is further,
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The determination as to whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a previously entered guilty plea rests within the sound discretion of the sentencing court (CPL 220.60; People v Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 524; People v. Stubbs, 110 A.D.2d 725, 727). Only in rare instances will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing upon a motion to withdraw a guilty plea (People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927; People v. Rodriguez, 150 A.D.2d 812, 813).
The record in the instant case reveals that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty in the presence of competent counsel after the court had advised him of the consequences of his plea. As a result of this court's decision and order remanding the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the motion to withdraw subsequent to the assignment of new counsel (People v. Santana, 156 A.D.2d 736, supra), the defendant was afforded ample opportunity to state the basis for his application to withdraw his plea after sentencing and the Supreme Court had his written motion papers before it. Under the circumstances, no error resulted from the absence of an evidentiary hearing with respect to his conclusory allegations that he had been confused at the time he entered his pleas, that his assigned counsel had pressured him, and that he was under the influence of medication which made him drowsy. The defendant had unequivocally acknowledged during his plea allocution that he had not been forced into entering his pleas and that he had had an adequate opportunity to confer with his attorney before doing so (see, People v. Rodriguez, supra; People v. Gomez, 142 A.D.2d 649; People v. Braun, 133 A.D.2d 702). Accordingly, the defendant was not entitled to a withdrawal of his pleas.
Additionally, we find that the sentences imposed were not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.