PEOPLE v. WHITE (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (George E. Fufidio, Jr., J.), rendered February 18, 2021, convicting him of murder in the first degree, attempted murder in the second degree, and robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree, attempted murder in the second degree, and robbery in the first degree.  Prior to sentencing, the defendant moved to withdraw his plea of guilty.  The County Court denied the motion without a hearing and imposed sentence.  The defendant appeals.

“The decision whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty is a matter within the sound discretion of the court and will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion” (People v. Ramos, 77 A.D.3d 773, 774, 909 N.Y.S.2d 484;  see CPL 220.60[3]).  “Such a motion must be premised upon some evidence of possible innocence or of fraud, mistake, coercion or involuntariness in the taking of the plea” (People v. Barnes, 210 A.D.3d 792, 793, 178 N.Y.S.3d 164 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see People v. Matos, 176 A.D.3d 976, 976, 108 N.Y.S.3d 354).  “A defendant's contention that his or her plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent survives a valid appeal waiver” (People v. Torres, 192 A.D.3d 831, 832, 143 N.Y.S.3d 102).  “When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry ‘rest[s] 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, quoting People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544).

Here, the record demonstrates that the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v. McClurkin, 231 A.D.3d 748, 749, 219 N.Y.S.3d 137;  People v. Tirado, 221 A.D.3d 832, 833, 200 N.Y.S.3d 73).  While the opinion of a psychiatrist and the defendant's medical records indicated that the defendant had a history of mental illness, there is no basis in the record to support the conclusion that, at the time of the plea proceedings, the defendant lacked the capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings or the consequences of his plea (see People v. Stephens, 186 A.D.3d 751, 751–752, 127 N.Y.S.3d 286;  People v. Harris, 166 A.D.3d 801, 801, 87 N.Y.S.3d 235).  To the contrary, the defendant's responses at the plea proceedings were appropriate and did not indicate that he was incapacitated (see People v. Duart, 144 A.D.3d 1173, 1175, 41 N.Y.S.3d 747;  People v. Gordon, 107 A.D.3d 739, 740, 966 N.Y.S.2d 214).  Accordingly, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea without a hearing.

IANNACCI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, DOWLING and HOM, JJ., concur.