People v. Brewington ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                            State of New York
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division
    Third Judicial Department
    Decided and Entered: April 2, 2015                      105901
    ________________________________
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
    NEW YORK,
    Respondent,
    v                                      MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    RUBIN BREWINGTON,
    Appellant.
    ________________________________
    Calendar Date:   February 20, 2015
    Before:   Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ.
    __________
    William T. Morrison, Albany, for appellant.
    P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Brittany L.
    Grome of counsel), for respondent.
    __________
    Garry, J.
    Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County
    (Herrick, J.), rendered January 7, 2013, convicting defendant
    upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second
    degree (two counts).
    In satisfaction of two multicount indictments, defendant
    agreed to plead guilty to two counts of burglary in the second
    degree. Defendant also executed an appeal waiver, but reserved
    his right to appeal on the sole issue of whether he could
    properly be sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender.
    At sentencing, defendant argued that a prior conviction from 1999
    was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and could
    not be used as a predicate violent felony (see CPL 400.15 [7]
    -2-                105901
    [b]; 400.16).1 County Court found that the People had met their
    burden of proving the predicate convictions, and sentenced
    defendant as a persistent violent felony offender to concurrent
    prison terms of 16½ years to life on each count. Defendant
    appeals.
    Defendant challenges the use of his 1999 conviction as a
    predicate violent felony, asserting that at the time of his plea
    to that charge he was not informed that the resulting sentence
    would include a mandatory period of postrelease supervision
    (hereinafter PRS). "Notwithstanding his failure to appeal from
    the [1999] conviction, defendant had an independent statutory
    right to challenge its use as a predicate conviction on the
    ground it was unconstitutionally obtained" (People v Johnson, 196
    AD2d 408, 410 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 806 [1993], citing People
    v Harris, 61 NY2d 9 [1983]; see People v Abdus-Samad, 69 AD3d
    516, 517 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 746 [2010]). It is well
    established that a court must advise a defendant of the direct
    consequences of a plea prior to sentencing, specifically
    including the existence and duration of any PRS requirement (see
    People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]; People v Bolivar, 118 AD3d
    91, 93-94 [2014]; People v Brown, 107 AD3d 1303, 1304 [2013]).
    Here, the transcript of defendant's 1999 plea allocution
    reveals that he was not advised that his plea would result in a
    mandatory period of PRS. Rather, defendant was first informed
    about the PRS through the court's pronouncement of his sentence.
    Defendant made comments expressing his surprise as to the PRS
    immediately thereafter, but he was not afforded an opportunity to
    withdraw his plea, either during his original sentencing or when
    he was later resentenced to adjust the duration of the PRS to
    conform with the requirements of Penal Law § 70.45. Given the
    apparent infirmities in defendant's 1999 plea allocution, we find
    that County Court erred in accepting the resulting conviction as
    a predicate violent felony for the purpose of sentencing
    defendant as a persistent violent felony offender (see People v
    1
    Defendant had also been subject to a 1991 conviction for
    burglary in the second degree, the validity of which was not
    disputed.
    -3-                  105901
    Santiago, 91 AD3d 438, 439 [2012]; People v Brown, 67 AD2d 949,
    950 [1979]; see generally People v Province, ___ Misc 3d ___, 
    2 NYS3d 320
     [Sup Ct, NY County 2015]).
    Accordingly, defendant's sentence must be vacated; we
    therefore remit to County Court for resentencing.2 In view of
    this disposition, we need not address defendant's contention that
    the 1999 conviction cannot be used as a predicate violent felony
    because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during
    said proceedings.
    Lahtinen, J.P., Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.
    ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by
    vacating the sentence imposed; matter remitted to the County
    Court of Albany County for resentencing; and, as so modified,
    affirmed.
    ENTER:
    Robert D. Mayberger
    Clerk of the Court
    2
    We note that defendant's 2013 plea agreement appears to
    have included a contingency sentence in the event of a successful
    appeal.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 105901

Judges: Garry, Lahtinen, Rose, Devine

Filed Date: 4/2/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024