SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
December 22, 2009
THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT,
ANTHONY TORRES, APPELLANT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Donnino, J.), rendered February 7, 2008, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, RANDALL T. ENG, L. PRISCILLA HALL and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
(Ind. No. 1415/07)
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
It is well settled that the right of a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the sentencing court (see People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780; People v Mann, 32 AD3d 865; People v Kucharczyk, 15 AD3d 595), and that determination will generally not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see People v DeLeon, 40 AD3d 1008). In this case, the record reveals that the defendant entered his plea of guilty knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, having reached a favorable plea bargain with the assistance of competent counsel with whose representation the defendant was satisfied (see People v Mann, 32 AD3d 865). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's arguments on appeal, "[a]n attorney assigned to represent a defendant in a criminal case has no duty to participate in a baseless pro se motion to withdraw a plea of guilty which was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made" (People v Caple, 279 AD2d 635, 635; see People v Rodriguez, 181 AD2d 643; People v Glasper, 151 AD2d 692, 693).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
DILLON, J.P., MILLER, ENG, HALL and SGROI, JJ., concur.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.