Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In the defendant's pro se written motion the defendant's claims of coercion at the plea allocution by his attorney and the inadequacy of counsel are unsubstantiated. The defendant was no stranger to the criminal justice system. In an earlier case, he had participated in a felony plea bargain, where he was represented by the same attorney. In this case, the defendant admitted that his initial claim of self-defense was false. He had an adequate opportunity not only to present all his claims orally, but to renew his previously waived defense of justification. No further inquiry was needed as to his claim of intoxication in light of the detailed allocution of his crime at the time of the plea and the expansion of those details at sentencing.
The only issue presented to the court on the pro se application was the defendant's credibility (see, People v. Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55, 56). The defendant's true concern was dissatisfaction with the bargain he had struck (see, People v. Morris, 118 A.D.2d 595), but a review of the entire plea record reveals the plea to have been proper (see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9).
Under these circumstances, the decision of the court was informed and prudent (see, People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520; People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926; People v. Stubbs, 110 A.D.2d 725, 726-728). Brown, J.P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.