PEOPLE v. WEBLEY (1998)

 Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of two counts of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[1] ) and sentenced in accordance with the plea bargain to consecutive terms of imprisonment.   The record establishes that the guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered (see, People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646).   Defendant contends that the guilty plea was defective because during the colloquy he indicated facts giving rise to a possible justification defense.   Defendant, however, informed County Court at the time of the plea that he had discussed that possible defense with his attorney (see, People v. Johnson, 91 A.D.2d 782, 783, 458 N.Y.S.2d 83).

 Furthermore, the court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying defendant's motion to withdraw the guilty plea based upon generalized claims and conclusory allegations that are unsupported by the record (see, People v. Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55, 57, 323 N.Y.S.2d 825, 272 N.E.2d 329;   People v. D'Orio, 210 A.D.2d 424, 620 N.Y.S.2d 410, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 972, 629 N.Y.S.2d 732, 653 N.E.2d 628;  People v. Mercedes, 171 A.D.2d 1044, 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).   The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe, and defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: