PEOPLE v. BURDEN (2023)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]), defendant contends that County Court erred in summarily denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on his claim of innocence. Preliminarily, because that contention would survive even a valid waiver of the right to appeal, we need not consider defendant's challenge to the validity of the waiver (see People v. Walcott, 164 A.D.3d 1593, 1593, 82 N.Y.S.3d 762 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1116, 91 N.Y.S.3d 367, 115 N.E.3d 639 [2018]; People v. Colon, 122 A.D.3d 1309, 1309-1310, 995 N.Y.S.2d 429 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1200, 16 N.Y.S.3d 522, 37 N.E.3d 1165 [2015]; People v. Sparcino, 78 A.D.3d 1508, 1509, 911 N.Y.S.2d 523 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 746, 917 N.Y.S.2d 628, 942 N.E.2d 1053 [2011]).

“When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry ‘rest[ ] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made’ and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances” (People v. Brown, 14 N.Y.3d 113, 116, 897 N.Y.S.2d 674, 924 N.E.2d 782 [2010]; see People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 [1974]). “ ‘[O]ften a limited interrogation by the court will suffice. The defendant should be afforded [a] reasonable opportunity to present [their] contentions and the court should be enabled to make an informed determination’ ” (People v. Harris, 206 A.D.3d 1711, 1712, 169 N.Y.S.3d 441 [4th Dept. 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1188, 176 N.Y.S.3d 207, 197 N.E.3d 487 [2022], quoting Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d at 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544). “[W]hen a motion to withdraw a plea is patently insufficient on its face, a court may simply deny the motion” (People v. Mitchell, 21 N.Y.3d 964, 967, 970 N.Y.S.2d 919, 993 N.E.2d 405 [2013]; see People v. Brooks, 187 A.D.3d 1587, 1589, 133 N.Y.S.3d 690 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1049, 140 N.Y.S.3d 875, 164 N.E.3d 962 [2021]).

Defendant's conviction arose from an incident in which he struck the victim in the head with a baseball bat, causing the victim to sustain a concussion and requiring 11 staples in her head. Defendant admitted during the plea colloquy that he struck the victim with a baseball bat, causing physical injury to her. In support of his motion to withdraw the plea, defendant submitted the affidavit of a neighbor of the victim, who averred that the victim said that she “busted [herself] in the head.” In opposition to the motion, the People submitted a supporting deposition of the victim denying that she made any such statement to the neighbor. We conclude that this case does not present one of the “rare instance[s]” where a hearing was required (Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d at 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544), and that the court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying the motion. The notion that the victim struck herself in the head with a baseball bat was incredible and properly rejected by the court (see generally Sparcino, 78 A.D.3d at 1509, 911 N.Y.S.2d 523).