SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
June 1, 2010
THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT,
ROBERT HARRIS, APPELLANT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), rendered November 29, 2006, convicting him of rape in the second degree (three counts) and endangering the welfare of a child, 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.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
(Ind. No. 2808/05)
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's pro se motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court, whose determination generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see CPL 220.60; People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780; People v Villalobos, 71 AD3d 924; People v Hines, 70 AD3d 969; People v Massey, 70 AD3d 722; People v Torres, 68 AD3d 1142, 1143; People v DeLeon, 40 AD3d 1008, 1008-1009). The record supports the County Court's determination that the defendant's plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17). In addition, the defendant entered his negotiated plea of guilty with the assistance of competent counsel, in exchange for a very favorable sentence promise (see People v Hines, 70 AD3d 969; People v Montalvo, 63 AD3d 1089, 1090). Finally, the defendant's unsubstantiated claim of dissatisfaction with the representation of his attorney was refuted by his statements during the plea allocution (see People v Massey, 70 AD3d 722).
RIVERA, J.P., FLORIO, MILLER and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.