PEOPLE v. DILLARD (1999)

 Supreme Court properly advised defendant of the consequences of his plea of guilty to the reduced charge of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.15), and defendant entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty (see, People v. Murray, 207 A.D.2d 999, 1000, 617 N.Y.S.2d 253, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 1014, 622 N.Y.S.2d 925, 647 N.E.2d 131).   The court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw the plea.   The court provided defendant a reasonable opportunity, through counsel, to advance his claims in support of the motion (see, People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 525, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332;  People v. Murray, supra, at 999-1000, 617 N.Y.S.2d 253).   Because defendant moved to withdraw the plea prior to sentencing (see, CPL 220.60 [3] ), his contention concerning the adequacy of the plea allocution is preserved for our review (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5).   However, defendant pleaded guilty to a reduced charge, and thus no factual colloquy was required (see, People v. Zimmerman, 219 A.D.2d 848, 631 N.Y.S.2d 951, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 856, 644 N.Y.S.2d 702, 667 N.E.2d 352;  People v. Tirado, 214 A.D.2d 1044, 1044-1045, 627 N.Y.S.2d 504).   Finally, we reject the contention that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).  “In the context of a guilty plea, a defendant has been afforded meaningful representation when he receives an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel” (People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: