WILLIAMS, NATHANIEL L., PEOPLE v ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1355
    KA 11-00225
    PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    NATHANIEL L. WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    DAVID P. ELKOVITCH, AUBURN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Thomas G.
    Leone, J.), rendered January 20, 2011. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the
    second degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
    upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree
    (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). We reject defendant’s contention
    that County Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to
    withdraw the plea. Defendant was not entitled to withdraw his plea
    based upon his misapprehension of the quality of the People’s case
    (see People v Jones, 44 NY2d 76, 81, cert denied 
    439 US 846
    ; People v
    Gumpton, 81 AD3d 1441, lv denied 17 NY3d 795). In addition,
    defendant’s assertion of innocence and his contention that he was
    coerced into pleading guilty are belied by his statements at the plea
    proceeding (see People v Garner, 86 AD3d 955). “Even assuming,
    arguendo, that the motion to withdraw the plea preserved for our
    review defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea
    allocution, we conclude that [such challenge] is without merit”
    (People v Conde, 34 AD3d 1347, 1347-1348). Finally, we reject
    defendant’s further contention that the court erred in failing to
    conduct an evidentiary hearing with respect to his motion to withdraw
    the plea, inasmuch as “[t]he court afforded defendant the requisite
    ‘reasonable opportunity to present his contentions’ in support of that
    motion” (People v Strasser, 83 AD3d 1411, 1411).
    Entered:    December 23, 2011                      Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 11-00225

Filed Date: 12/23/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016