People v. Adamo

Citation105 N.Y.S.3d 717,174 A.D.3d 1228
Decision Date25 July 2019
Docket Number109964
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph J. ADAMO Jr., Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

174 A.D.3d 1228
105 N.Y.S.3d 717

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Joseph J. ADAMO Jr., Appellant.

109964

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: May 3, 2019
Decided and Entered: July 25, 2019


105 N.Y.S.3d 718

Hug Law, PLLC, Albany (Matthew C. Hug of counsel), for appellant.

Mary Pat Donnelly, District Attorney, Troy (Jacob B. Sher of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Rumsey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Clark, J.

174 A.D.3d 1228

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Young, J.), entered December 8, 2017, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment convicting him of the crime of attempted murder in the second degree, without a hearing.

On the morning of March 17, 2014, defendant – who had been staying outside the marital home due to an ongoing disagreement with his wife about how to address his worsening mental health issues – drove to the marital home and stabbed his wife 31 times with a kitchen knife. Defendant's father arrived on the scene shortly

105 N.Y.S.3d 719

after the attack and sought medical and police intervention. Defendant was subsequently arrested and, while in police custody, he confessed to the stabbing. In October 2014, defendant was indicted on charges of attempted murder

174 A.D.3d 1229

in the second degree, assault in the first degree (two counts), assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

On January 13, 2015, defendant appeared in County Court to enter into a plea agreement wherein he would plead guilty to attempted murder in the second degree and waive his right to appeal in exchange for a prison sentence of 18 years, followed by five years of postrelease supervision. However, when County Court inquired – during the course of the plea colloquy – as to whether "anyone [had] threatened, coerced or forced [him] in any way into pleading guilty and waiving [his] rights," defendant responded in the affirmative. After County Court afforded him time to speak with his attorney off the record,1 defendant – speaking for himself – asked for additional time to consider the offer. Defendant also stated to his attorney, "It is not your life." County Court then indicated that it would not be moving forward with a guilty plea that day, at which point defense counsel immediately expressed his intention to make a formal motion to withdraw as counsel.

Three days later, still represented by the same attorney, defendant once again appeared in County Court ready to enter into the plea agreement. After indicating that he had not been threatened, coerced or forced into the plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted murder in the second degree and waived his right to appeal, orally and in writing. However, there was no discussion on the record as to what had changed in the three days since defendant had last appeared in County Court. Immediately following defendant's guilty plea, County Court sentenced defendant, in accordance with the plea agreement, to 18 years in prison, followed by five years of postrelease supervision.2

In July 2017, defendant moved, pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(e), (g–1) and (h), to vacate the judgment of conviction on the basis that, among other things, he had not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered his guilty plea and he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. County Court denied the motion without a hearing. Defendant appeals, by permission, from the order denying his motion.

We agree with defendant that County Court should have

174...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • People v. Jones
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 4, 2021
    ...to the preservation requirement was triggered here (see People v. Avera, 192 A.D.3d at 1383, 145 N.Y.S.3d 199 ; People v. Favreau, 174 A.D.3d at 1228, 105 N.Y.S.3d 721 ). No factual allocution was necessary as defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser crime as part of a plea bargain and, contrar......
  • People v. Favreau
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 25, 2019
    ...the crime or provide a "factual exposition" ( People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797 [2005] ). Moreover, 174 A.D.3d 1228 where, as here, a defendant pleads to a lesser crime as part of a plea bargain, the court is "not required to engage in a factual recitatio......
  • People v. Mastro
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 25, 2019
    ...make any statements during the plea allocution that were inconsistent with his guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness 105 N.Y.S.3d 717 of his plea; hence, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable (see People v. Harrington, 170 A.D.3d 1338, 1338......
  • People v. Jones
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • November 4, 2021
    ...that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was triggered here (see People v Avera, 192 A.D.3d at 1383; People v Favreau, 174 A.D.3d at 1228). No factual allocution was necessary as defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser crime as part of a plea bargain and, contrary to defendant......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT