People v. Barnett

• Decision Date: 08 February 1999
• Citation: 685 N.Y.S.2d 273
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 1006 The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Christopher BARNETT, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 273

685 N.Y.S.2d 273

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 1006

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Christopher BARNETT, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Feb. 8, 1999.

M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Joanne Legano Ross of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Nicole Beder of counsel; Alyssa Eisner on the brief), for respondent.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, DANIEL W. JOY and GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered May 22, 1996, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, the defendant's pro se motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. The defendant's conclusory allegations that he was innocent and that he was coerced by his attorney were directly belied by the record of the plea proceedings (see, People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332; People v. Murray, 245 A.D.2d 531, 666 N.Y.S.2d 716; People v. Breeden, 221 A.D.2d 352, 633 N.Y.S.2d 366). Furthermore, the defendant's contention that he is entitled to reconsideration of his motion and appointment of new counsel is without merit. The statements by defense counsel with respect to the defendant's pro se motion were not adverse to his claims (cf., People v. Bernard, 242 A.D.2d 387, 662 N.Y.S.2d 129).

The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal the enhanced sentence is unenforceable (see, People v. Stewart, 244 A.D.2d 585, 664 N.Y.S.2d 360; People v. Prescott, 196 A.D.2d 599, 601 N.Y.S.2d 325; cf., People v. Lococo, 92 N.Y.2d 825, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57, 699 N.E.2d 416; People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46). Under the circumstances, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh (see, People v. Patterson, 211 A.D.2d 829, 621 N.Y.S.2d 672). The defendant was adjudicated a persistent violent felony offender based on his previous burglary convictions, and he was indicted for another burglary which was committed while he was released on bail pending sentencing in the instant matter.

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.