People v. Crump
| Decision Date | 06 June 2013 |
| Citation | 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04053,107 A.D.3d 1046,966 N.Y.S.2d 282 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joshua CRUMP, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
107 A.D.3d 1046
966 N.Y.S.2d 282
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04053
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Joshua CRUMP, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
June 6, 2013.
[966 N.Y.S.2d 283]
G. Scott Walling, Queensbury, for appellant.
James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Bonnie M. Mitzner of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, STEIN and GARRY, JJ.
PETERS, P.J.
[107 A.D.3d 1046]Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), rendered June 27, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, conspiracy in the fourth degree and attempted petit larceny, and the violation of unlawful possession of marihuana.
In 2010, defendant and a codefendant were charged in an indictment with various offenses arising out of their entry into a residence. Defendant pleaded guilty to the entire indictment and waived his right to appeal without consideration. He was thereafter sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 8 1/2 years, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. He appeals, and we affirm.
Contrary to the People's assertion, defendant was not required to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction in order to preserve his challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver ( see [107 A.D.3d 1047]People v. Baliraj, 101 A.D.3d 1175, 1176, 954 N.Y.S.2d 711 [2012];People v. Lewis, 48 A.D.3d 880, 880–881, 851 N.Y.S.2d 295 [2008] ). Having exercised his statutory right to plead guilty to all of the charges levied against him in the indictment and inasmuch as “no promise, plea agreement, reduced charge, or any other bargain or consideration” was given in exchange for that plea, defendant was improperly required to waive his right to appeal ( People v. Nicelli, 74 A.D.3d 1235, 1236, 904 N.Y.S.2d 119 [2010];seeCPL 220.10[2]; People v. Meiner, 20 A.D.3d 778, 778 n., 797 N.Y.S.2d 925 [2005];People v. Coles, 13 A.D.3d 665, 666, 786 N.Y.S.2d 595 [2004] ).
County Court's treatment of defense counsel prompted a recusal request, which was later withdrawn. Thus, defendant's claims surrounding the court's improper conduct are unpreserved ( see People v. White, 81 A.D.3d 1039, 1039, 916 N.Y.S.2d 652 [2011];People v. Mao–Sheng Lin, 50 A.D.3d 1251, 1253, 855 N.Y.S.2d 729 [2008],lv. denied
10...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Sylvan
-
People v. Whitted
...discretion or extraordinary circumstance warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice ( see People v. Crump, 107 A.D.3d 1046, 1047, 966 N.Y.S.2d 282 [2013],lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 1014, 971 N.Y.S.2d 497, 994 N.E.2d 393 [2013];People v. Briel, 36 A.D.3d 1081, 1082, 826 N.Y.S......
-
People v. Ramos
...to preserve this challenge in order to raise it here (see People v. Vellon, 128 A.D.3d at 1275, 10 N.Y.S.3d 347 ; People v. Crump, 107 A.D.3d 1046, 1046, 966 N.Y.S.2d 282 [2013], lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1014, 971 N.Y.S.2d 497, 994 N.E.2d 393 [2013] ), we find that Supreme Court's careful instr......
-
People v. Wallace
...appeal is unenforceable for lack of consideration (see People v. Mitchell, 147 A.D.3d 1361, 1362, 46 N.Y.S.3d 749 ; People v. Crump, 107 A.D.3d 1046, 1047, 966 N.Y.S.2d 282, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1014, 971 N.Y.S.2d 497, 994 N.E.2d 393 ; cf. People v. Deprosperis, 132 A.D.3d 692, 693, 17 N.Y.......