People v. Atkins

• Decision Date: 24 January 2018
• Docket Number: 2016–08174,Ind. No. 15–00544
• Citation: 66 N.Y.S.3d 915 (Mem),157 A.D.3d 899
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Timothy V. ATKINS, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

157 A.D.3d 899

66 N.Y.S.3d 915 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Timothy V. ATKINS, appellant.

2016–08174

Ind. No. 15–00544

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

Submitted—December 19, 2017

January 24, 2018

Michele Marte–Indzonka, Newburgh, NY, for appellant.

David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.

L. PRISCILLA HALL, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Craig Stephen Brown, J.), rendered July 13, 2016, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the fourth degree in exchange for a promised sentence of six months in jail and a five-year period of probation. However, after the defendant violated a condition of the plea that he not be rearrested prior to sentencing, the court imposed an indeterminate term of imprisonment of one to three years.

The defendant's contention that he was coerced into admitting to the violation of a plea condition, while not precluded by his appeal waiver (see People v. Bracy, 131 A.D.3d 538, 539, 15 N.Y.S.3d 397 ; People v. Ricketts, 27 A.D.3d 488, 489, 811 N.Y.S.2d 103 ), is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Bracy, 131 A.D.3d at 539, 15 N.Y.S.3d 397 ; People v. Arrington, 94 A.D.3d 903, 941 N.Y.S.2d 877 ; cf. People v. Weston, 145 A.D.3d 746, 747, 43 N.Y.S.3d 413 ; People v. Holcombe, 116 A.D.3d 1063, 983 N.Y.S.2d 875 ). In any event, the contention is not supported by the record, which does not reflect that the defendant was coerced, but only that the sentencing court informed the defendant of what the People's sentencing recommendation would be if he admitted to the violation and committed to accept the People's recommendation upon such an admission (see generally People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 9, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022 ; People v. Licausi, 122 A.D.3d 771, 773, 996 N.Y.S.2d 188 ).

The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal limits this Court's review of the defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim to issues regarding the voluntariness of the plea (see People v. Martinez, 155 A.D.3d 1063, 64 N.Y.S.3d 587 ; People v. Flowers, 152 A.D.3d 791, 56 N.Y.S.3d 470 ). To the extent that the defendant's contentions are related to the voluntariness of the plea, his contentions involve a "mixed claim" of ineffective assistance that requires reference to matters outside the record ( People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ; see People v. Evans, 16 N.Y.3d 571, 575 n 2, 925 N.Y.S.2d 366, 949 N.E.2d 457 ; People v. Freeman, 93 A.D.3d 805, 806, 940 N.Y.S.2d 314 ). It is not evident based on the record that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (cf. People v. Crump, 53 N.Y.2d 824, 440 N.Y.S.2d 170, 422 N.E.2d 815 ; People v. Brown, 45 N.Y.2d 852, 410 N.Y.S.2d 287, 382 N.E.2d 1149 ). Therefore, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety (see People v. Freeman, 93 A.D.3d at 806, 940 N.Y.S.2d 314 ).

Review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim is precluded by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811...