People v Bullock (Jason)

[*1] People v Bullock (Jason) 2005 NYSlipOp 50483(U) Decided on April 6, 2005 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 6, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: McCABE, P.J., COVELLO and TANENBAUM, JJ.
2003-850 S CR -x

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

JASON BULLOCK, Appellant. -x

Appeal by defendant from judgments of the District Court, Suffolk County (P. Filiberto, J.), rendered May 27, 2003, convicting him of resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30) and forcible touching (Penal Law § 130.52), and imposing sentences.

Judgments of conviction unanimously affirmed.

The determination of whether to permit the withdrawal of a guilty plea rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and absent a showing of abuse, the court's determination will not be disturbed (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482 [2002]; People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]; People v Scott, 2 AD3d 884 [2003]; People v Fernandez, 291 AD2d 456 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 650 [2002]). In
the case at bar, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea without a hearing. A hearing is required only when the record presents a genuine question of fact as to the voluntariness of the plea (People v Lane, 1 AD3d 801 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 742 [2004]). Moreover, a guilty plea may not be withdrawn absent some evidence or claim of innocence, fraud, or mistake in its inducement (see People v McDonnell, 302 AD2d 619, 620 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 540 [2003]). Here, the minutes of the plea proceedings show that defendant entered a knowing and voluntary plea in which he expressly stated under oath that he was not coerced or threatened into pleading guilty, that his attorney [*2]explained all the consequences of his plea including the requirement that he register under the Sex Offender Registration Act, and that he was satisfied with his attorney's representation. In addition, the minutes show that the court, at great length, advised defendant of the consequences of registration. Said statements belie defendant's claim that he was coerced into pleading guilty and that the consequences of being designated a sex offender were not fully explained to him. In any event, the failure to advise a defendant
that he would fall under the purview of the Sex Offender Registration Act by pleading guilty, does not undermine the voluntariness of his plea (People v Clark, 261 AD2d 97 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 833 [2000]).
Decision Date: April 06, 2005