PEOPLE v. FISHER (2007)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.10[2][a] ).   We reject the contention of defendant that County Court abused its discretion in denying his pro se motion to withdraw the plea (see generally People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 780-781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797).   In support of the motion, defendant alleged that defense counsel was deceptive and misleading, and he alleged that defense counsel had breached a promise to him.   In addition, defendant alleged that the facts of the crime did not constitute a robbery.   Defendant provided no details to support his allegations, although he was afforded an opportunity to do so, and the record establishes that, during the plea colloquy, defendant indicated that he was satisfied with the services of defense counsel and that no one forced or threatened him to plead guilty.   Defendant also admitted during the plea colloquy that he forcibly stole a purse from the victim and physically injured her (see § 160.10[2][a] ).   We thus conclude that the court properly denied the motion because it was “ ‘based upon generalized claims and conclusory allegations that are unsupported by the record’ ” (People v. Rouse, 1 A.D.3d 958, 959, 767 N.Y.S.2d 335, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 634, 777 N.Y.S.2d 32, 808 N.E.2d 1291;  see People v. Grimes, 2 A.D.3d 1476, 1477, 769 N.Y.S.2d 438, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 628, 777 N.Y.S.2d 27, 808 N.E.2d 1286).

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

MEMORANDUM: