PEOPLE v. COKER (1997)

 On appeal from a judgment convicting him of promoting prison contraband in the first degree, defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in summarily denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see, CPL 220.60[3] ).  We disagree.   The motion was based on conclusory assertions that defendant could impeach a prosecution witness and that defense counsel was ineffective, assertions that were not raised during the plea allocution and that are unsupported by the record (see, People v. Mercedes, 171 A.D.2d 1044, 1045, 579 N.Y.S.2d 601, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 998, 571 N.Y.S.2d 923, 575 N.E.2d 409;  People v. O'Keefe, 170 A.D.2d 1020, 566 N.Y.S.2d 166, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 965, 570 N.Y.S.2d 498, 573 N.E.2d 586).

 We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an enhanced sentence based on defendant's failure to appear in court on the original sentencing date (see, People v. Marshall, 231 A.D.2d 893, 647 N.Y.S.2d 890, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 866, 653 N.Y.S.2d 289, 675 N.E.2d 1242).  “Conditions imposed as part of a plea arrangement are valid if the parties agree to them and they do not violate any statute or contravene public policy” (People v. Avery, 85 N.Y.2d 503, 507, 626 N.Y.S.2d 726, 650 N.E.2d 384).   The court informed defendant before accepting his plea that the sentence would be 2 to 4 years of incarceration if he appeared for sentencing on October 2, 1995, and 3 to 6 years if he failed to appear.   Defendant agreed to that condition but failed to appear as directed on October 2, 1995.

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contention and conclude that the court's errors, if any, are harmless.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: