From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Caruso

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 11, 2011
88 A.D.3d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-10-11

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Jason V. CARUSO, appellant.

Joseph F. DeFelice, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Douglas Noll and Laurie K. Gibbons of counsel), for respondent.


Joseph F. DeFelice, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Douglas Noll and Laurie K. Gibbons of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered September 10, 2010, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court and generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion ( see CPL 220.60[3]; People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797; People v. Duncan, 78 A.D.3d 1193, 912 N.Y.S.2d 283). “Only in rare instances will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing upon a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty” ( People v. Smith, 54 A.D.3d 879, 880, 863 N.Y.S.2d 818; see CPL 220.60[3]; People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 524–525, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332). The record reflects that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent ( see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170; People v. Douglas, 83 A.D.3d 1092, 1093, 921 N.Y.S.2d 324; People v. Stubbs, 110 A.D.2d 725, 728, 487 N.Y.S.2d 824). The recantation evidence submitted in support of the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty “was inherently unreliable and insufficient, alone, to justify withdrawal of the plea” ( People v. Douglas, 83 A.D.3d at 1093, 921 N.Y.S.2d 324; see People v. Mortensen, 60 A.D.3d 971, 972, 874 N.Y.S.2d 823; People v. Branton, 35 A.D.3d 1035, 1036, 826 N.Y.S.2d 489). Furthermore, the defendant's contention regarding his innocence is unsupported by the record and did not afford a basis for withdrawal of the plea of guilty ( see People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482, 485, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802; People v. Douglas, 83 A.D.3d at 1093, 921 N.Y.S.2d 324; People v. Duncan, 78 A.D.3d 1193, 912 N.Y.S.2d 283).

The defendant's assertions that defense counsel forced him to plead guilty and that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel are belied by his statements under oath on the record acknowledging that his plea had not been coerced and that the plea was being entered of his own free will ( see People v. Douglas, 83 A.D.3d at 1093, 921 N.Y.S.2d 324; People v. Duncan, 78 A.D.3d 1193, 912 N.Y.S.2d 283). Further, “ ‘[t]he defendant expressed no dissatisfaction with his counsel at the time of the plea, after the court had fully apprised him of the consequences of pleading guilty’ ” ( People v. Douglas, 83 A.D.3d at 1093, 921 N.Y.S.2d 324, quoting People v. Hall, 195 A.D.2d 521, 522, 600 N.Y.S.2d 274). The defendant received an advantageous plea, and there is nothing in the record which casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel ( see People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563, 565, 721 N.Y.S.2d 577, 744 N.E.2d 112; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265; People v. Yarborough, 83 A.D.3d 875, 920 N.Y.S.2d 681). Moreover, the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was largely based upon unsubstantiated conclusory allegations and, thus, his motion pursuant to CPL 220.60(3) was properly denied without a hearing ( see People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d at 486, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d at 712–713, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; People v. Douglas, 83 A.D.3d at 1093, 921 N.Y.S.2d 324; People v. Dunbar, 260 A.D.2d 644, 687 N.Y.S.2d 271).


Summaries of

People v. Caruso

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 11, 2011
88 A.D.3d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

People v. Caruso

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Jason V. CARUSO, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 11, 2011

Citations

88 A.D.3d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
930 N.Y.S.2d 668
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7234

Citing Cases

People v. Matos

DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a…

People v. Johnson

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. “The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered…