People v. Morris
Opinion of the Court
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 attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]),. defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. We reject that contention (see generally People v Howell, 60 AD3d 1347 [2009]). The plea colloquy was not rendered factually insufficient by defendant’s-monosyllabic responses to questioning by the court (see People v VanDeViver, 56 AD3d 1118 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 931 [2009], reconsideration denied 12 NY3d 788 [2009]; People v Wilson, 38 AD3d 1348 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 927 [2007]), and we conclude that the record otherwise establishes that the plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Guzman, 70 AD3d 1332 [2010]; People v Spikes, 28 AD3d 1101, 1102 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 818 [2006]). Indeed, the contention of defendant that his plea was coerced by defense counsel is belied by the record (see People v Montgomery, 63 AD3d 1635, 1636 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 798 [2009]; People v Gimenez, 59 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 816 [2009]). In addition, defendant failed to submit any new evidence to substantiate his conclusory assertions of innocence in support of his motion to withdraw the plea (see Guzman, 70 AL)3d 1332; People v Kimmons, 39 AD3d 1180 [2007]). Thus, contrary to the contention of defendant, he made no showing of entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on his motion, and we note in any event that “[o]nly in the rare instance will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing” (People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]; see Kimmons, 39 AD3d at 1180). Present — Martoche, J.P., Centra, Garni, Lindley, and Pine, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.