Opinion
2019–01853 Ind. No. 139/15
01-19-2022
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Alvin SMITH, appellant.
Andrew E. MacAskill, Garden City, NY, for appellant. Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jared A. Chester and Libbi Vilher of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
Andrew E. MacAskill, Garden City, NY, for appellant.
Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jared A. Chester and Libbi Vilher of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, WILLIAM G. FORD, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (William O'Brien, J.), rendered January 31, 2019, convicting him of assault in the first degree, criminal contempt in the first degree, and aggravated family offense, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The determination of a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the motion court, and that determination generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see People v. Mills, 181 A.D.3d 718, 718, 117 N.Y.S.3d 880 ; People v. Walker, 169 A.D.3d 723, 724, 93 N.Y.S.3d 403 ). "Generally, a plea of guilty may not be withdrawn absent some evidence or claim of innocence, fraud, or mistake in its inducement" ( People v. DeLeon, 40 A.D.3d 1008, 1009, 837 N.Y.S.2d 189 ; see People v. Mills, 181 A.D.3d at 718, 117 N.Y.S.3d 880 ). "Whether a plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary is dependent upon a number of factors ‘including the nature and terms of the agreement, the reasonableness of the bargain, and the age and experience of the accused’ " ( People v. Garcia, 92 N.Y.2d 869, 870, 677 N.Y.S.2d 772, 700 N.E.2d 311, quoting People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 736, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46 ; see People v. Mills, 181 A.D.3d at 718, 117 N.Y.S.3d 880 ).
Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea. The defendant's claim of coercion based upon time restraints is belied by the record (see People v. Rose, 193 A.D.3d 885, 886, 146 N.Y.S.3d 294 ). The mere fact that the defendant's trial attorney had informed the defendant of his pessimistic view of the chances of succeeding at trial did not constitute coercion (see People v. Solis, 111 A.D.3d 654, 655, 974 N.Y.S.2d 132 ; People v. Elting, 18 A.D.3d 770, 771, 795 N.Y.S.2d 699 ). Further, the court sufficiently warned the defendant regarding the effect that a plea of guilty would have on his ability to contest the alleged violation of his statutory rights to a speedy trial if he pleaded guilty (see People v. Pray, 183 A.D.3d 842, 843, 124 N.Y.S.3d 59 ). Moreover, "the defendant's monosyllabic, one-word responses did not render the plea invalid" ( People v. Lopez–Hilario, 178 A.D.3d 1078, 1078, 112 N.Y.S.3d 564 ; see generally People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d 295, 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692 ).
The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request for an adjournment (see People v. Cooper, 192 A.D.3d 823, 823, 139 N.Y.S.3d 902 ).
RIVERA, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, FORD and DOWLING, JJ., concur.