People v. Blackwell
| Decision Date | 18 June 2007 |
| Docket Number | Indictment No. 06-1423 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. YOLANDA BLACKWELL, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
DECISION AND ORDER
By oral motion, the People move the Court to impose an enhanced sentence upon the defendant under the instant indictment in excess of the twelve (12) year determinate term of imprisonment which it had conditionally agreed to impose pursuant to its approval of the negotiated plea agreement reached between the prosecution and defense upon the defendant's entry of a guilty plea before the Court on March 15, 2007 due to the defendant's alleged failure to comply with the Court's directive that she fully cooperate with the Westchester County Department of Probation throughout their preparation of her pre-sentence investigation report (hereinafter, PSR). In connection with the instant application, it is alleged by the People that the statements made by the defendant to her assigned probation officer during the interview conducted in connection with the preparation of her PSR reflect the defendant's denial of responsibility for the criminal conduct which was the subject of the guilty plea she entered before the Court, thereby justifying the enhancement of her agreed upon sentence.
On March 15, 2007, the defendant entered a guilty plea before this Court to a single count of Assault in the first degree, charged in violation of Penal Law § 120.10, in full satisfaction of the instant indictment. The conduct underlying this charge concerned the defendant's repeated submersion of the lower half of her infant son's body into a bathtub which she had filled with scalding water, causing third degree burns to his buttocks, perineum, penis, scrotum, posterior thighs, calves, feet, waist and abdominal area. The defendant's conduct in this regard caused her infant son to sustain significant third degree burns to 20% of his body, resulting in permanent scarring and necessitating numerous surgeries and an extensive stay in the intensive care unit of the hospital where he was treated. When questioned by the police during their investigation into this incident, the defendant provided oral, written and videotaped statements indicating, in substance, that she had repeatedly immersed her infant son in the scalding water in an effort to express the anger she felt toward her infant son's father.
On March 15, 2007, the defendant entered a guilty plea before this Court to a single count of Assault in the first degree in full satisfaction of the instant indictment, in exchange for a sentence promise from the Court which was placed on the record providing for a determinate twelve (12) year term of imprisonment, a five (5) year term of post-release supervision, a surcharge of $270.00 and permanent orders of protection for the defendant's two children. Prior to the Court's acceptance of the defendant's guilty plea, the defendant was placed under oath and questioned by Assistant District Attorney Laura Murphy. During her examination by ADA Murphy before the Court, the defendant specifically admitted under oath that she hadintentionally caused serious physical injury to her infant son through her use of scalding water. Immediately after the defendant completed her allocution in response to ADA Murphy's examination, the Court examined her briefly with respect to the knowing and voluntary nature of her guilty plea and received satisfactory responses. The Court then provided the defendant with a detailed admonition concerning the qualified nature of the sentence commitment she had received from the Court, indicating that same was conditioned upon her agreement to provide truthful responses to the questions asked by the Department of Probation during her interview conducted in connection with the preparation of her pre-sentence report. Specifically, the Court admonished the defendant on the record as follows:
My acceptance of your plea and my commitment to you to impose the sentence that I indicated requires that if you choose to answer questions put to you by the Probation Department when you are interviewed for your pre-sentence investigation and report, that you answer those questions truthfully and consistently with the answers that you gave here today. If I find, upon reading the pre-sentence report, that you have not answered those questions truthfully and consistently with the answers given here today, I will not keep my sentence to you, I will not allow you to withdraw your plea and I will, in all probability, sentence you to more years in jail, up to maximum of 25 years. Do you understand what I have just said ?
The defendant responded by affirmatively stating that she understood the Court's admonition and in appreciation of the defendant's recognition of these terms, the Court announced its acceptance of the defendant's plea and adjourned the case to May 10, 2007 for sentencing.
On May 7, 2007, the Court received a copy of the defendant's PSR from the Department of Probation and upon reviewing same, identified an apparent inconsistency between the statements made by the defendant under oath during her guilty plea allocution and those statements attributed to the defendant during her interview conducted in connection with the preparation of her PSR by Investigating Probation Officer Susann Carelli. Upon the appearanceof the parties before the Court on May 10, 2007, the People were afforded an opportunity to address the Court before the imposition of sentence. At that time, ADA Laura Murphy related that after reviewing the statements attributed to the defendant in her PSR, she believed that the defendant had violated the Court's admonition to provide a truthful account of her criminal conduct to the Department of Probation during her PSR interview. Acting upon the content of the defendant's PSR, ADA Murphy presented an oral application to the Court seeking the enhancement of the defendant's sentence beyond the determinate term of imprisonment of twelve (12) years which had been conditionally promised to the defendant upon the Court's acceptance of her guilty plea. After consulting with the defendant, defense counsel, Clare Degnan, Esq., indicated that the defendant would not consent to the enhancement of her sentence and requested that the Court afford her an opportunity to be heard in connection with the People's application. The Court acceded to defense counsel's request by adjourning the defendant's sentencing and scheduling a hearing pursuant to People v. Hicks (98 NY2d 185) to determine whether the enhancement of the defendant's sentence was authorized and appropriate based upon the People's claim that the statements attributed to the defendant in her PSR by Investigating Probation Officer Carelli reflect a failure by the defendant to cooperate with the Department of Probation during the preparation of her PSR as required by the Court upon its conditional acceptance of the plea bargain she had negotiated with the People in this case. Accordingly, the Court adjourned this matter until June 4, 2007 for the examination of witnesses and the presentation of oral argument in connection with the so-called Hicks hearing.
On June 4, 2007, the Court commenced a Hicks hearing in this matter and directed the People to present evidence in support of their application for the enhancement of the defendant's sentence. The People presented the testimony of a single witness, Investigating Probation Officer Susann Carelli, who testified that she has been employed by the Westchester County Department of Probation for 33 years and has been responsible for preparing Pre-sentence Investigation Reports for the past 23 years, completing approximately 20 such reports per month. In connection with her preparation of the PSR in this case, Officer Carelli interviewed the defendant personally in an interview room of the Westchester County Jail on March 27, 2007.1
After initially questioning the defendant about matters pertaining to her personal and family background, as well as her physical and mental health, Officer Carelli asked the defendant to describe the events that resulted in the injury of her infant son. The defendant then related to Officer Carelli that after she observed that her infant son had soiled himself during the night, she brought him into the bathroom and undressed him in preparation for a bath. The defendant then advised Officer Carelli that she left her infant son unattended in the bathroom while the bathtub was filling with scalding water, and that upon returning to the bathroom ten minutes later, she observed that her son was already in the bathtub. When questioned further by Officer Carelli about this account, the defendant specifically denied placing her son into the bathtub and bath water, as she suggested that her only wrongdoing concerned her failure to check the temperatureof the bath water.
Having taken note of the inconsistencies between the defendant's latest admission and her earlier admissions concerning the circumstances under which her infant son was burned, Officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial