PEOPLE v. CISKIEWIC (2023)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of predatory sexual assault (Penal Law § 130.95 [1] [a]). We reject defendant's contention that County Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea without a hearing. “When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry ‘rest[ ] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made’ and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances” (People v. Brown, 14 N.Y.3d 113, 116, 897 N.Y.S.2d 674, 924 N.E.2d 782 [2010], quoting People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 [1974]; see People v. Manor, 27 N.Y.3d 1012, 1013-1014, 35 N.Y.S.3d 272, 54 N.E.3d 1143 [2016]). Contrary to defendant's contention, his “postplea protestations of ․ misunderstanding ․ and ‘pressure’ presented credibility issues that the court could properly resolve without a hearing” (People v. Newsome, 140 A.D.3d 1695, 1695-1696, 34 N.Y.S.3d 295 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 973, 43 N.Y.S.3d 260, 66 N.E.3d 6 [2016]; see People v. Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55, 56, 323 N.Y.S.2d 825, 272 N.E.2d 329 [1971]; People v. Sparcino, 78 A.D.3d 1508, 1509, 911 N.Y.S.2d 523 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 746, 917 N.Y.S.2d 628, 942 N.E.2d 1053 [2011]).

Defendant further contends that his guilty plea was not sufficiently allocuted. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and therefore does not preclude our review of his challenge (see generally People v. Barnes, 206 A.D.3d 1713, 1715, 169 N.Y.S.3d 446 [4th Dept. 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1132, 172 N.Y.S.3d 853, 193 N.E.3d 518 [2022]), we conclude that it is without merit. “There is no requirement that defendant personally recite the facts underlying the crime to which he is pleading guilty” (People v. Singletary, 307 A.D.2d 779, 779, 762 N.Y.S.2d 862 [4th Dept. 2003], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 599, 766 N.Y.S.2d 175, 798 N.E.2d 359 [2003]; see People v. Brown, 305 A.D.2d 1068, 1069, 759 N.Y.S.2d 830 [4th Dept. 2003], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 579, 764 N.Y.S.2d 389, 796 N.E.2d 481 [2003]; see also People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797 [2005]). Here, “[t]he record establishes that defendant admitted the essential elements of the ․ count[ ] of the indictment [to which he pleaded guilty,] and thus his factual allocution is legally sufficient” (People v. Dorrah, 50 A.D.3d 1619, 1619, 856 N.Y.S.2d 406 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 736, 864 N.Y.S.2d 394, 894 N.E.2d 658 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Emm, 23 A.D.3d 983, 984, 804 N.Y.S.2d 880 [4th Dept. 2005], lv denied 6 N.Y.3d 775, 811 N.Y.S.2d 342, 844 N.E.2d 797 [2006]).