People v Weems
2022 NY Slip Op 01920 [203 AD3d 1684]
March 18, 2022
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, May 4, 2022


[*1]
 The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Montiez L. Weems, Appellant.

Mark D. Funk, Conflict Defender, Rochester (Carolyn Walther of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Scott Myles of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John L. DeMarco, J.), rendered April 5, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant upon a plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree.

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 burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20), we reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in denying without an evidentiary hearing his pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. "Only in the rare instance will a defendant be entitled to an evidentiary hearing; often a limited interrogation by the court will suffice. The defendant should be afforded [a] reasonable opportunity to present his [or her] contentions and the court should be enabled to make an informed determination" (People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]; see People v Strasser, 83 AD3d 1411, 1411 [4th Dept 2011]). Here, the record establishes that defendant was afforded such an opportunity and that the court was able to make an informed determination of the motion (see People v Soriano, 178 AD3d 1376, 1377 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 1163 [2020]). Contrary to defendant's related contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to substitute new counsel (see People v Weinstock, 129 AD3d 1663, 1664 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1012 [2015]). Present—Peradotto, J.P., Lindley, Curran, Winslow and Bannister, JJ.