People v. Coleman

Decision Date22 March 2019
Docket Number1151,KA 16–01964
Citation94 N.Y.S.3d 897 (Mem),170 A.D.3d 1661
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joshua COLEMAN, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTAPPELLANT.

JOHN J. FLYNN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. LOWRY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree ( Penal Law § 170.25 ). In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, three counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (id. ). We affirm in both appeals.

Defendant's contention in both appeals that County Court imposed certain surcharges and fees in violation of Penal Law § 60.35 is not preserved for our review and, in any event, it lacks merit because, at the time of sentencing, restitution had not yet "been made" ( People v. Ziolkowski, 9 A.D.3d 915, 915, 779 N.Y.S.2d 708 [4th Dept. 2004], lv denied 3 N.Y.3d 683, 784 N.Y.S.2d 22, 817 N.E.2d 840 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see § 60.35[6] ).

Contrary to defendant's further contention, he validly waived his right to appeal from both judgments (see People v. Tyes, 160 A.D.3d 1447, 1447, 72 N.Y.S.3d 902 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1154, 83 N.Y.S.3d 435, 108 N.E.3d 509 [2018] ; People v. Oberdorf, 136 A.D.3d 1291, 1292, 24 N.Y.S.3d 545 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1073, 38 N.Y.S.3d 843, 60 N.E.3d 1209 [2016] ; People v. Ripley, 94 A.D.3d 1554, 1555, 942 N.Y.S.2d 919 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 976, 950 N.Y.S.2d 359, 973 N.E.2d 769 [2012] ; People v. Frank, 258 A.D.2d 900, 900, 685 N.Y.S.2d 555 [4th Dept. 1999], lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 924, 693 N.Y.S.2d 507, 715 N.E.2d 510 [1999] ; see generally People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256–257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ), and that waiver forecloses his challenge in each appeal to the severity of his sentences (see Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ).

Finally, we note that the uniform sentence and commitment form in each appeal contains an incorrect offense date and must therefore be amended to reflect the correct dates set forth in the superior court information and indictment, respectively (see People v. Southard, 163 A.D.3d 1461, 1462, 76 N.Y.S.3d 869 [4th Dept. 2018] ).

All concur except NEMOYER , J., who concurs in the result in the following memorandum: I join the majority's disposition and its reasoning in all respects except its analysis of defendant's challenge to the mandatory fees and surcharges. In my view, because the various fees and surcharges required by Penal Law § 60.35 are not part of a criminal sentence (see People v. Guerrero, 12 N.Y.3d 45, 47, 876 N.Y.S.2d 687, 904 N.E.2d 823 [2009] ), defendant's valid, general, and unrestricted waiver of his right to appeal forecloses our review of his challenge to the legality of those assessments in this case (see People v. Wilson, 168 A.D.3d 889, 890, 89 N.Y.S.3d 919 [2d Dept. 2019] ; People v. Logan, 125 A.D.3d 688, 688, 999 N.Y.S.2d 753 [2d Dept. 2015] ; People v. Morales, 119 A.D.3d 1082, 1084, 990 N.Y.S.2d 144 [3d Dept. 2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 1086, 1 N.Y.S.3d 13, 25 N.E.3d 350 [2014] ; People v. Frazier, 57 A.D.3d 1460, 1461, 869 N.Y.S.2d 826 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 783, 879 N.Y.S.2d 60, 906 N.E.2d 1094 [2009]...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Shantz
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 20, 2020
    ...60.35 [1] [b] ). Although defendant correctly concedes that he failed to preserve his contention for our review (see People v. Coleman , 170 A.D.3d 1661, 1661, 94 N.Y.S.3d 897 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1068, 105 N.Y.S.3d 57, 129 N.E.3d 377 [2019] ; People v. Parker , 137 A.D.3d ......
  • People v. Sweat, 396
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 22, 2019
    ...proximity of the consent does not compel suppression by itself (see Leroy M. , 16 N.Y.3d at 247, 919 N.Y.S.2d 484, 944 N.E.2d 1123 ), 170 A.D.3d 1661here, that factor and all of the other factors favor suppression (cf. id. ). The purpose of the illegal entry was to recover a gun that the of......
  • People v. Coleman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 22, 2019
    ...ORDERIt is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is affirmed.Same memorandum as in People v. Coleman (appeal No. 1), ––– A.D.3d ––––, 94 N.Y.S.3d 897, 2019 WL 1303678 (Mar. 22, 2019) (4th Dept. 2019).All concur except NEMOYER , J., who concurs in the result in the same concurrin......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT