People v. WardPeople v. Ward
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court and generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see
Here, the defendant‘s contention that he was coerced into pleading guilty based on his inability to adequately confer with his counsel and to prepare an adequate defense, which essentially rendered his counsel ineffective, is belied by his statements during the plea proceeding, in which he acknowledged under oath that he was satisfied with his counsel‘s representation, that he had not been forced into pleading guilty, and that he was entering the plea freely and voluntarily (see People v Trimble, 137 AD3d 1309 [2016]; People v Bennett, 115 AD3d at 973; People v Howard, 109 AD3d at 487). Since the defendant‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was premised on unsubstantiated and conclusory allegations belied by the record, the County Court properly denied the motion without conducting a hearing (see People v Bush, 132 AD3d at 692; People v Bennett, 115 AD3d at 973; People v Shorter, 106 AD3d 1115 [2013]).
The defendant‘s remaining contention is without merit.
Chambers, J.P., Hall, Austin and LaSalle, JJ., concur.