Opinion
December 22, 1995
Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Connell, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea without permitting him to address the court or conducting an evidentiary hearing. A defendant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to advance the claim that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, People v Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 525). In only rare instances, however, will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty (see, People v Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927).
The record shows that defense counsel's motion to withdraw defendant's guilty plea included a detailed affidavit by defendant apprising the court of his claims, and that defense counsel was permitted to argue the motion. Defendant was thereby afforded a reasonable opportunity to advance his claims and the court did not err in denying the motion without further inquiry (see, People v Rodriguez, 150 A.D.2d 812, 813, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 818; People v Austin, 117 A.D.2d 835, 836; People v Luke UU., 99 A.D.2d 881, 881-882).
We reject the further contention of defendant that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant's belated claims of coercion and innocence are unsupported by the record, which shows that defendant knowingly and voluntarily made a complete and detailed statement concerning his commission of the crime (see, People v Hall, 195 A.D.2d 521, 522, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 754; People v Lynch, 156 A.D.2d 884, 884-885, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 921).
The record also fails to support the contention in defendant's pro se supplemental brief that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Hall, supra, at 522; People v Lynch, supra, at 885; People v Mayes, 133 A.D.2d 905, 906). Defendant entered into an advantageous plea bargain wherein he noted his satisfaction with counsel.
We have reviewed the remaining contentions advanced by defendant, including those raised in defendant's pro se supplemental brief, and we conclude that they are lacking in merit.