PEOPLE v. CRENSHAW

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. William CRENSHAW, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: November 17, 2006

PRESENT:  HURLBUTT, A.P.J., SCUDDER, GORSKI, CENTRA, AND GREEN, JJ. Richard W. Youngman, Conflict Defender, Rochester (R. Adrian Solomon of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant. Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Margaret A. Jones of Counsel), for Plaintiff-Respondent.

On appeal from an order denying his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment convicting him of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[4] ), defendant contends that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying the motion without conducting a hearing.   We reject that contention.   Pursuant to CPL 440.30(4)(d), the court has discretion to deny a CPL 440.10 motion where, as here, “the allegations essential to support the motion are contradicted by the record and there is no reasonable possibility that they are true” (People v. Bonilla, 6 A.D.3d 1059, 1061, 775 N.Y.S.2d 619;  cf. People v. Staton, 224 A.D.2d 984, 637 N.Y.S.2d 838).   We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: