People v. Haines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Haines

2017 NY Slip Op 7013, 154 A.D.3d 1017, 60 N.Y.S.3d 861

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 5, 2017·No. 108225·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), rendered January 7, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

Defendant was arrested for unlawfully entering a residence and stealing approximately $7,000. After executing a waiver of indictment and a detailed, written waiver of appeal, defendant orally waived his right to appeal and pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree as charged in a superior court information. The plea agreement provided that defendant would receive a prison sentence of 6V2 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. As part of the plea agreement, the People promised that if defendant made restitution in the amount of $2,000 prior to sentencing, they would recommend a prison sentence of five years followed by five years of post-release supervision. Defendant failed to make any restitution payments and, consistent with the plea agreement, County Court imposed, among other things, a prison sentence of 6V2 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant’s due process claim that County Court should not have imposed the agreed-upon 6V2-year prison term without first conducting an indigency hearing, as well as his claim that such sentence was harsh and excessive, are precluded by his unchallenged — and, in any event, valid — appeal waiver (see People v Lyman, 119 AD3d 968, 969-970 [2014], lv denied 27 NY3d 1153 [2016]; People v Long, 117 AD3d 1326, 1326-1327 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1003 [2014]). Moreover, by not bringing his due process claim to the attention of the court at the time of sentencing or making a motion to withdraw his plea, defendant failed to preserve his claim for our review (see People v Rushlow, 137 AD3d 1482, 1483 [2016]; People v Bassoff, 51 AD3d 682, 683 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 734 [2008]).

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), rendered January 7, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

Defendant was arrested for unlawfully entering a residence and stealing approximately $7,000. After executing a waiver of indictment and a detailed, written waiver of appeal, defendant orally waived his right to appeal and pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree as charged in a superior court information. The plea agreement provided that defendant would receive a prison sentence of 6V2 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. As part of the plea agreement, the People promised that if defendant made restitution in the amount of $2,000 prior to sentencing, they would recommend a prison sentence of five years followed by five years of post-release supervision. Defendant failed to make any restitution payments and, consistent with the plea agreement, County Court imposed, among other things, a prison sentence of 6V2 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant’s due process claim that County Court should not have imposed the agreed-upon 6V2-year prison term without first conducting an indigency hearing, as well as his claim that such sentence was harsh and excessive, are precluded by his unchallenged — and, in any event, valid — appeal waiver (see People v Lyman, 119 AD3d 968, 969-970 [2014], lv denied 27 NY3d 1153 [2016]; People v Long, 117 AD3d 1326, 1326-1327 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1003 [2014]). Moreover, by not bringing his due process claim to the attention of the court at the time of sentencing or making a motion to withdraw his plea, defendant failed to preserve his claim for our review (see People v Rushlow, 137 AD3d 1482, 1483 [2016]; People v Bassoff, 51 AD3d 682, 683 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 734 [2008]).

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

People v. Haines, 2017 NY Slip Op 7013, 154 A.D.3d 1017, 60 N.Y.S.3d 861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 7013 (People v. Haines) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related