People v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 24 February 1992
• Citation: 180 A.D.2d 808,580 N.Y.S.2d 445
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Patrick CAMPBELL, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 445

580 N.Y.S.2d 445

180 A.D.2d 808

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Patrick CAMPBELL, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Feb. 24, 1992.

John F. Clennan, Ronkonkoma, for appellant.

Patrick Campbell, pro se.

Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Bruce E. Whitney and George Freed, of counsel), for respondent.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and O'BRIEN, RITTER and COPERTINO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Doolittle, J.), rendered March 12, 1986, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (three counts) and burglary in the first degree (five counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that the minutes of his plea allocution reveal that he voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly waived his right to appellate review of the denial of those branches of his omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and his statements to law enforcement officials (see, People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022). Accordingly, this appeal does not bring these issues up for review (see, People v. Winston, 158 A.D.2d 565, 551 N.Y.S.2d 841; People v. Green, 156 A.D.2d 378, 548 N.Y.S.2d 903).

At sentencing, the defendant moved to withdraw his plea, asserting that he was innocent and that he had misunderstood the promise as to the sentence which would be imposed. We find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's application. The defendant's purported misunderstanding of the sentence promised as part of the plea agreement was not a sufficient reason to vacate the plea, as the record clearly indicates that the minimum sentence promised was an indeterminate term of 20 years to life imprisonment (see, People v. Santana, 151 A.D.2d 518, 542 N.Y.S.2d 307). Moreover, the defendant's assertion of innocence was insufficient to warrant withdrawal of the plea (see, People v. Bourdonnay, 160 A.D.2d 1014, 555 N.Y.S.2d 134; People v. Suba, 130 A.D.2d 526, 515 N.Y.S.2d 106), particularly since, during the plea allocution, the defendant read aloud his confession to the police and stated that the facts stated therein were true. The defendant's contentions on appeal regarding the adequacy of the plea allocution were not raised in the County Court and are therefore unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636, 467 N.Y.S.2d 355, 454 N.E.2d 938; People v. Santana, supra ). In any event, a review of the record reveals that the defendant's plea of guilty was neither improvident nor baseless and was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170).

...