PEOPLE v. COSS (2005)

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Madison County (Di Stefano, J.), rendered March 11, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of rape in the third degree.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of rape in the third degree.   Following an unsuccessful oral motion to withdraw his guilty plea, defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 2 to 4 years in accordance with the agreement.   Defendant's appeal was held in abeyance and new counsel assigned after this Court determined that there were nonfrivolous appealable issues to be raised (9 A.D.3d 741, 779 N.Y.S.2d 792 [2004] ).   We now affirm.

 Defendant claims that his plea was not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently entered since he was not informed that he would be subject to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art. 6-C [hereinafter SORA] ) upon his release from incarceration.   However, inasmuch as SORA is not intended to effect punishment but, rather, to protect communities from the danger posed by sex offenders, the failure to advise a defendant that he would be required to register as a sex offender does not undermine the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Stevens, 91 N.Y.2d 270, 275-276, 669 N.Y.S.2d 962, 692 N.E.2d 985 [1998];  People v. Keebler, 15 A.D.3d 724, 726, 789 N.Y.S.2d 547 [2005], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 854, 797 N.Y.S.2d 428, 830 N.E.2d 327 [2005];  People v. Clark, 261 A.D.2d 97, 100, 704 N.Y.S.2d 149 [2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 833, 713 N.Y.S.2d 140, 735 N.E.2d 420 [2000] ).

 Nor are we persuaded that County Court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea without a hearing.   “Generally, a guilty plea may not be withdrawn absent some evidence or claim of innocence, fraud or mistake in its inducement” (People v. Davis, 250 A.D.2d 939, 940, 672 N.Y.S.2d 945 [1998] [citations omitted];  see People v. Zakrzewski, 7 A.D.3d 881, 881-882, 776 N.Y.S.2d 377 [2004];  People v. Lane, 1 A.D.3d 801, 802-803, 767 N.Y.S.2d 504 [2003], lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 742, 778 N.Y.S.2d 467, 810 N.E.2d 920 [2004] ).   Here, defendant did not claim innocence during the plea colloquy but, rather, unequivocally admitted the charged conduct.   Moreover, County Court apprised defendant of the rights he was foregoing and other consequences of his guilty plea, elicited that defendant was not being coerced or threatened and understood and agreed to the plea terms in full.   Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that defendant's guilty plea was voluntary, knowing and intelligent (see People v. Kron, 8 A.D.3d 908, 908, 779 N.Y.S.2d 263 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 708, 785 N.Y.S.2d 36, 818 N.E.2d 678 [2004];  People v. Williams, 6 A.D.3d 746, 747-748, 776 N.Y.S.2d 329 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 650, 782 N.Y.S.2d 421, 816 N.E.2d 211 [2004] ).

 Next, inasmuch as defense counsel negotiated “ ‘an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel’ ” (People v. Wright, 295 A.D.2d 806, 807, 743 N.Y.S.2d 911 [2002], quoting People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265 [1995] ), we are unpersuaded that defendant was denied meaningful representation (see People v. Lewis, 13 A.D.3d 810, 811, 788 N.Y.S.2d 181 [2004];  People v. Washington, 3 A.D.3d 741, 743, 770 N.Y.S.2d 789 [2004], lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 747, 778 N.Y.S.2d 472, 810 N.E.2d 925 [2004] ).   We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

MUGGLIN, J.

CREW III, J.P., SPAIN, ROSE and KANE, JJ., concur.