People v. Crispell

• Citation: 24 N.Y.S.3d 454,136 A.D.3d 1121,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 01018
• Decision Date: 11 February 2016
• Docket Number: 107090.
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Francis CRISPELL, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

136 A.D.3d 1121

24 N.Y.S.3d 454

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 01018

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Francis CRISPELL, Appellant.

107090.

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

Feb. 11, 2016.

James P. Milstein, Public Defender, Albany (Theresa M. Suozzi of counsel), for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Brittany L. Grome of counsel), for respondent.

EGAN JR., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Lynch, J.), rendered February 7, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree, and his plea included a waiver of the right to appeal. Prior to being sentenced, defendant moved to withdraw his plea on the grounds that he was innocent and that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. County Court denied the motion without a hearing and sentenced defendant to 3 ½ years in prison, to be followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Initially, based upon our review of the plea colloquy and the counseled written waiver, we are satisfied that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v. Donah, 127 A.D.3d 1413, 1413, 5 N.Y.S.3d 736 2015; People v. Long, 117 A.D.3d 1326, 1326, 986 N.Y.S.2d 670 2014, lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1003, 997 N.Y.S.2d 121, 21 N.E.3d 573 2014 ). Therefore, defendant's claim that his sentence is harsh and excessive is foreclosed (see People v. Mayo, 130 A.D.3d 1099, 1100, 12 N.Y.S.3d 389 2015; People v. Oginski, 123 A.D.3d 1303, 1303, 996 N.Y.S.2d 799 2014, lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 970 2015 ).

Turning to his plea, “[t]he decision as to whether a defendant should be permitted to withdraw his or her guilty plea is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and a hearing is only warranted when the record presents a genuine issue of fact with respect to its voluntariness” (People v. Wren, 119 A.D.3d 1291, 1292, 990 N.Y.S.2d 731 2014, lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1048, 998 N.Y.S.2d 318, 23 N.E.3d 161 2014; see People v. Griffin, 89 A.D.3d 1235, 1236, 932 N.Y.S.2d 252 2011 ). Here, the record reflects that County Court fully explained the ramifications of the guilty plea, including the rights being forfeited, and defendant affirmed his understanding thereof and thereafter freely admitted to facts that established the elements of the crime (see People v. Smith, 89 A.D.3d 1328, 1328, 932 N.Y.S.2d 913 2011; People v. Moreno, 86 A.D.3d 863, 864, 927 N.Y.S.2d 487 2011, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 954, 936 N.Y.S.2d 80, 959 N.E.2d 1029 2011 ). Defendant's claim of being under duress at the time of the plea is belied by the record, as he affirmed during the colloquy that he had been provided a full opportunity to discuss the plea with counsel, including potential defenses, and that he was not being forced into pleading guilty (see People v. Phillips, 71 A.D.3d 1181, 1183, 896 N.Y.S.2d 241 2010, lvs. denied 15 N.Y.3d 755, 906 N.Y.S.2d 828, 933 N.E.2d 227 2010 ). Finally,...