People v. Sawyer , 22 N.Y.S.3d 711 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                            State of New York
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division
    Third Judicial Department
    Decided and Entered: January 21, 2016                    106265
    ________________________________
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
    NEW YORK,
    Respondent,
    v                                      MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    JON J. SAWYER,
    Appellant.
    ________________________________
    Calendar Date:    November 18, 2015
    Before:    Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr., Rose and Devine, JJ.
    __________
    John A. Cirando, Syracuse, for appellant.
    Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Ramy Louis of
    counsel), for respondent.
    __________
    Rose, J.
    Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence
    County (Richards, J.), rendered October 17, 2013, convicting
    defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of grand larceny
    in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a forged
    instrument in the second degree (six counts).
    Defendant was charged by indictment with one count of grand
    larceny in the fourth degree, six counts of criminal possession
    of a forged instrument in the second degree and one count of
    attempted bribing a witness. County Court dismissed the count of
    attempted bribing a witness, and defendant pleaded guilty to the
    remaining seven counts. During the plea allocution, defendant
    also orally waived his right to appeal and executed a written
    appeal waiver. After defendant was allowed to complete a drug
    -2-                106265
    rehabilitation program pursuant to his plea agreement, County
    Court sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate
    prison term of 4 to 8 years. He now appeals.
    Defendant first argues that he did not knowingly waive his
    right to appeal. Our review of the record reveals, however, that
    County Court explained the meaning of the appeal waiver to
    defendant, noted that it is separate and distinct from the rights
    forfeited by his guilty plea, and ascertained that he understood
    it and had no questions about it. Defendant also signed a
    written waiver of appeal with the assistance of counsel in open
    court. Accordingly, the record amply demonstrates that
    defendant's appeal waiver was knowing, voluntary and intelligent
    (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]; People v
    Jackson, 129 AD3d 1342, 1342 [2015]; People v Toback, 125 AD3d
    1060, 1061 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 993 [2015]). Nor can we
    agree with defendant's argument that this was a situation in
    which he agreed to plead guilty with "'no [return] promise, plea
    agreement, reduced charge, or any other bargain or
    consideration'" from the People or the court (People v Crump, 107
    AD3d 1046, 1047 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1014 [2013], quoting
    People v Nicelli, 74 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2010]; see People v Coles,
    13 AD3d 665, 666 [2004]). Rather, in exchange for his guilty
    plea, defendant was released prior to sentencing and allowed to
    seek inpatient drug rehabilitation treatment. The court also
    assured defendant that successful completion of such a program
    would be taken into consideration at sentencing. Ultimately, the
    court credited defendant with full completion of the program and
    sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 4 to 8 years, far
    less than the maximum sentence that would have been legally
    permissible (see Penal Law §§ 70.06 [3] [d], [e]; 155.30 [1];
    170.25).
    While defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his
    guilty plea survives his appeal waiver, it is unpreserved for our
    review as he failed to make a postallocution motion to withdraw
    his plea (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Richardson, 132 AD3d 1022,
    1023 [2015]; People v Broomfield, 128 AD3d 1271, 1271 [2015]).
    Nor does the narrow exception to the preservation requirement
    apply here, as the record does not reflect that he "made [any]
    statements during the plea allocution that negated an element of
    -3-                  106265
    the crime or otherwise called into doubt his guilt or the
    voluntariness of his plea" (People v Richardson, 132 AD3d at
    1023; see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). Defendant's
    remaining arguments are precluded by his valid waiver of appeal.
    Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur.
    ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
    ENTER:
    Robert D. Mayberger
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 106265

Citation Numbers: 135 A.D.3d 1164, 22 N.Y.S.3d 711

Judges: Rose

Filed Date: 1/21/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024