PEOPLE v. HUMBER (2006)

 On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of rape in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.30[1] ), defendant contends that his plea of guilty was coerced and thus that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea with respect to that charge.   We reject defendant's contention.   The court properly concluded, following an evidentiary hearing on defendant's motion, that defendant's unsubstantiated and conclusory assertions of innocence were insufficient to warrant vacatur of the plea (see generally People v. Peters, 302 A.D.2d 869, 753 N.Y.S.2d 780, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 541, 763 N.Y.S.2d 7, 793 N.E.2d 421).   Moreover, the fact “[t]hat [former defense] counsel made defendant aware of his sentencing exposure cannot be a basis for finding coercion” (People v. Kelly, 159 A.D.2d 227, 227, 552 N.Y.S.2d 32, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 737, 558 N.Y.S.2d 899, 557 N.E.2d 1195).

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

MEMORANDUM: