Opinion
11-02-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Kevin STREET, appellant.
Laura Solinger, Southold, NY, for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Alfred J. Croce of counsel), for respondent.
Laura Solinger, Southold, NY, for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Alfred J. Croce of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Efman, J.), rendered October 16, 2013, convicting him of driving while ability impaired by drugs in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(4), aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree, and resisting arrest, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court, and generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see CPL 220.60[3] ; People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482, 483–484, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802 ; People v. Bennett, 115 A.D.3d 973, 973–974, 982 N.Y.S.2d 554 ; People v. Howard, 109 A.D.3d 487, 487, 970 N.Y.S.2d 86 ; People v. Crawford, 106 A.D.3d 832, 833, 964 N.Y.S.2d 636 ). When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rests largely in the discretion of the court and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances (see People v. Brown, 14 N.Y.3d 113, 116, 897 N.Y.S.2d 674, 924 N.E.2d 782 ; People v. Bennett, 115 A.D.3d at 974, 982 N.Y.S.2d 554 ; People v. Howard, 109 A.D.3d at 487, 970 N.Y.S.2d 86 ; People v. Anderson, 98 A.D.3d 524, 524, 949 N.Y.S.2d 207 ). Here, the record reflects that the defendant's plea of guilty was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 ). The defendant's postplea assertions that he was innocent contradicted the admissions made under oath at his plea allocution, and were insufficient to warrant vacatur of his plea or a hearing (see People v. Upson, 134 A.D.3d 1058, 1058, 21 N.Y.S.3d 688 ; People v. Martinez, 129 A.D.3d 1106, 1107, 11 N.Y.S.3d 686 ; People v. Dazzo, 92 A.D.3d 796, 796, 938 N.Y.S.2d 446 ).
Further, by pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited appellate review of his contention that he did not receive pretrial discovery (see People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 230–231, 715 N.Y.S.2d 369, 738 N.E.2d 773 ; People v. Campbell, 73 N.Y.2d 481, 486, 541 N.Y.S.2d 756, 539 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Pryor, 12 A.D.3d 695, 695, 784 N.Y.S.2d 896 ; People v. Perkins, 288 A.D.2d 506, 507, 731 N.Y.S.2d 903 ).
BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, ROMAN, DUFFY and BARROS, JJ., concur.