People v. Barney

• Docket Number: 112269
• Decision Date: 20 April 2023
• Citation: People v. Barney, 215 A.D.3d 1137, 187 N.Y.S.3d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Matthew A. BARNEY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

215 A.D.3d 1137

187 N.Y.S.3d 409

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Matthew A. BARNEY, Appellant.

112269

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

Calendar Date: March 29, 2023

Decided and Entered: April 20, 2023

Feldman & Feldman, Manhasset (Steven A. Feldman of counsel), for appellant.

Kristy L. Sprague, District Attorney, Elizabethtown (Kevin P. Mallery of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Aarons, Fisher and McShan, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Aarons, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Essex County(Richard B. Meyer, J.), rendered January 16, 2020, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of aggravated criminal contempt.

Defendant was charged in a seven-count indictment with two counts of criminal contempt in the first degree, two counts of aggravated criminal contempt and three counts of endangering the welfare of a child stemming from allegations that he violated a stay away order of protection issued in 2016 in favor of, as relevant here, two victims, an adult and a child.Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to count 3 of the indictment charging aggravated criminal contempt, which related to his conduct against the child victim in subjecting him to physical contact in violation of the 2016 order of protection, and admitted that he had previously been convicted of criminal contempt in the first degree.As part of the agreement, defendant was required to waive his right to appeal, and executed a written appeal waiver during the plea proceedings.Consistent with the agreement, County Court imposed a prison sentence, as an acknowledged second felony offender, of 3 to 6 years, and issued a stay away order of protection in favor of the child victim and two other children, all of whom were the subject of the 2016 order of protection.Defendant appeals.

We affirm.Contrary to defendant's contentions, the record reflects that his combined oral and written waiver of appeal entered in connection with his guilty plea is valid.County Court clearly distinguished the waiver of appeal from the trial-related rights automatically extinguished by the guilty plea, explained the nature of the right to appeal and ensured that defendant understood that right, and ascertained that he had discussed the written appeal waiver with counsel and understood it prior to signing it (seePeople v. Lopez,6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145[2006];People v. Harper,207 A.D.3d 965, 966, 172 N.Y.S.3d 241[3d Dept.2022] ).The court did not suggest that the waiver was an absolute bar to an appeal and made clear that some issues survive the waiver, an advisement also contained in the written waiver, and we are satisfied that defendant, assisted by counsel, "understood the distinction that some appellate review survived"( People v. Thomas,34 N.Y.3d 545, 561, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970[2019] ).Defendant's claim that the court failed to advise him that he would be entitled to assigned counsel on appeal if he qualified is belied by the written waiver he reviewed with counsel and indicated he understood.Accordingly, defendant's appeal waiver is knowing, voluntary and intelligent (seePeople v. Sanders,25 N.Y.3d 337, 339–341, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344[2015];People v. Lopez,6 N.Y.3d at 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ).

Defendant's challenge to his guilty plea as not knowing, voluntary or intelligent, which survives the appeal waiver, was not preserved by an appropriate postallocution motion, despite an opportunity to do so prior to sentencing (seePeople v. Williams,27 N.Y.3d 212, 221–222, 32 N.Y.S.3d 17, 51 N.E.3d 528[2016];People v. Conceicao,26 N.Y.3d 375, 381–382, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199[2015] ).Defendant contends that his initial response during the plea allocution that, during the incident charged in count 3, he"broke up a physical fight," constituted a denial that he committed the crime of aggravated criminal contempt and triggered the narrow exception to the preservation requirement and the duty of County Court to inquire further (seePeople v. Lopez,71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5[1988] ).Aggravated criminal contempt as charged in count 3 requires that defendant, in violation of the duly served 2016 order of protection, "with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm [the child victim,] a...