People v. Anderson, 2013-04840.

• Citation: 50 N.Y.S.3d 552,149 A.D.3d 766
• Decision Date: 05 April 2017
• Docket Number: 2013-04840.
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Allan ANDERSON, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

149 A.D.3d 766
50 N.Y.S.3d 552

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Allan ANDERSON, appellant.

2013-04840.

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

April 5, 2017.

50 N.Y.S.3d 553

Thomas T. Keating, Dobbs Ferry, NY, for appellant.

David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, (Berry, J.), rendered February 22, 2013, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid and, thus, does not preclude review of any of his claims (see generally People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 140, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ).

Where a "defendant's factual recitation negates an essential element of the crime pleaded to or casts significant doubt on the defendant's guilt, the court may not accept the plea without further inquiry" (People v. Mead, 27 A.D.3d 767, 767, 815 N.Y.S.2d 616 ; see People v. Lebron, 140 A.D.3d 790, 791, 30 N.Y.S.3d 907 ; People v. Alonzo, 90 A.D.3d 1065, 934 N.Y.S.2d 831 ). Although the defendant contends that he negated an essential element of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[3] ) during his plea allocution, the County Court's further inquiry into the circumstances underlying the crime established that the defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v. Lebron, 140 A.D.3d at 791, 30 N.Y.S.3d 907; People v. Mead, 27 A.D.3d at 767, 815 N.Y.S.2d 616 ; see also People v. Alonzo, 90 A.D.3d 1065, 934 N.Y.S.2d 831 ).

The defendant's challenge to the validity of his waiver of indictment is not forfeited by his plea of guilty and does not need to be preserved (see People v. Boston, 75 N.Y.2d 585, 589, 555 N.Y.S.2d 27, 554 N.E.2d 64 ; People v. Yunga, 122 A.D.3d 951, 951, 997 N.Y.S.2d 470 ). However, the defendant's contention that his waiver of indictment was invalid is without merit. CPL 195.10(1) provides, in relevant part: "[A]...