People v. Morrill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Morrill

139 A.D.3d 1266, 30 N.Y.S.3d 587

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 19, 2016

Docket107524

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.3d 1266 (People v. Morrill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Morrill, 139 A.D.3d 1266, 30 N.Y.S.3d 587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*1267 Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered January 23, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree.

Defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree. He also waived his right to appeal, both orally and in writing. Under the terms of the plea agreement, he was to be sentenced to two years in prison, to be followed by one year of postrelease supervision. County Court agreed to release defendant on his own recognizance pending sentencing and advised him that if he violated the conditions of his release, which included testing positive for the use of drugs, the court would not be bound by the sentencing commitment and could sentence him to 2V2 years in prison. Prior to sentencing, defendant tested positive for drug use and County Court sentenced him to 2V2 years in prison, to be followed by one year of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

Initially, defendant contends that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent because he was not advised of potential sentencing consequences prior to entering his plea. Defendant, however, is foreclosed from raising this claim as it does not appear from the record that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Buck, 136 AD3d 1117, 1118 [2016]; People v Butler, 134 AD3d 1349, 1350 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 963 [2016]). Moreover, we do not find that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is applicable here given that defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that negated his guilt (see People v Buck, 136 AD3d at 1118; People v Butler, 134 AD3d at 1350). Defendant’s alternative argument that his sentence is harsh and excessive is precluded by his valid waiver of the right to appeal as County Court advised him of the consequences of violating the release conditions as well as the maximum sentence that could be imposed (see People v Perkins, 125 AD3d 1045, 1047 [2015]; People v Smith, 123 AD3d 1375, 1376 [2014], lv denied 26 NY3d 935 [2015]).

Peters, P.J., Garry, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

*1267 Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered January 23, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree.

Defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree. He also waived his right to appeal, both orally and in writing. Under the terms of the plea agreement, he was to be sentenced to two years in prison, to be followed by one year of postrelease supervision. County Court agreed to release defendant on his own recognizance pending sentencing and advised him that if he violated the conditions of his release, which included testing positive for the use of drugs, the court would not be bound by the sentencing commitment and could sentence him to 2V2 years in prison. Prior to sentencing, defendant tested positive for drug use and County Court sentenced him to 2V2 years in prison, to be followed by one year of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

Initially, defendant contends that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent because he was not advised of potential sentencing consequences prior to entering his plea. Defendant, however, is foreclosed from raising this claim as it does not appear from the record that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Buck, 136 AD3d 1117, 1118 [2016]; People v Butler, 134 AD3d 1349, 1350 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 963 [2016]). Moreover, we do not find that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is applicable here given that defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that negated his guilt (see People v Buck, 136 AD3d at 1118; People v Butler, 134 AD3d at 1350). Defendant’s alternative argument that his sentence is harsh and excessive is precluded by his valid waiver of the right to appeal as County Court advised him of the consequences of violating the release conditions as well as the maximum sentence that could be imposed (see People v Perkins, 125 AD3d 1045, 1047 [2015]; People v Smith, 123 AD3d 1375, 1376 [2014], lv denied 26 NY3d 935 [2015]).

Peters, P.J., Garry, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 1266, 30 N.Y.S.3d 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-morrill-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack