The People, etc., respondent, v. Robert Harris, appellant. (2010)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The People, etc., respondent, v. Robert Harris, appellant.

2006-11860 (Ind.No. 2808 /05)

Decided: June 01, 2010

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. ANITA R. FLORIO HOWARD MILLER LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.

Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVincenzo of counsel), for respondent. The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's pro se motion to withdraw his plea of guilty.   A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court, whose determination generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see CPL 220.60[3];  People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780;  People v Villalobos, 71 AD3d 924;  People v Hines, 70 AD3d 969;  People v Massey, 70 AD3d 722;  People v Torres, 68 AD3d 1142, 1143;  People v DeLeon, 40 AD3d 1008, 1008-1009).   The record supports the County Court's determination that the defendant's plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543;  People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17).   In addition, the defendant entered his negotiated plea of guilty with the assistance of competent counsel, in exchange for a very favorable sentence promise (see People v Hines, 70 AD3d 969;  People v Montalvo, 63 AD3d 1089, 1090).   Finally, the defendant's unsubstantiated claim of dissatisfaction with the representation of his attorney was refuted by his statements during the plea allocution (see People v Massey, 70 AD3d 722).