PEOPLE v. DOGAN (2021)

OPINION OF THE COURT

 MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

We review the summary denial of a CPL article 440 motion under an abuse of discretion standard (see People v. Wright, 27 N.Y.3d 516, 520, 35 N.Y.S.3d 286, 54 N.E.3d 1157 [2016]).  It is well settled that a court may deny a CPL 440.10 motion without conducting a hearing if “[t]he motion is based upon the existence or occurrence of facts and the moving papers do not contain sworn allegations substantiating or tending to substantiate all the essential facts” (CPL 440.30[4][b]).  Here, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's CPL 440.10 motion without a hearing because, under the circumstances presented, defendant failed to sufficiently allege “ ‘a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's [alleged] errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial’ ” (People v. Hernandez, 22 N.Y.3d 972, 975, 978 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1 N.E.3d 785 [2013], quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 [1985]).  Moreover, defendant failed to otherwise “show that the nonrecord facts sought to be established ․ would entitle him to relief” (People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, 488 N.E.2d 834 [1985]).  Accordingly, County Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant was not entitled to a hearing.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, in a memorandum.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson, Singas and Cannataro concur.