People v. Darrell

• Citation: 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08563,145 A.D.3d 1316,45 N.Y.S.3d 223
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joe DARRELL, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 22 December 2016
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

145 A.D.3d 1316

45 N.Y.S.3d 223

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08563

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Joe DARRELL, Appellant.

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

Dec. 22, 2016.

Todd G. Monahan, Schenectady, for appellant.

Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Nicholas J. Evanovich of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., GARRY, DEVINE, MULVEY and AARONS, JJ.

GARRY, J.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), rendered July 23, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree, and (2) by permission, from an order of said court, entered December 10, 2015, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction, without a hearing.

Defendant, an inmate, was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and promoting prison contraband in the first degree after he was found to be in possession of a scalpel during intake processing at the correctional facility. While being processed, defendant set off the metal detector and a metal detection chair twice alerted to the presence of metal on his person, and he admitted that he had a scalpel which was later recovered during a strip search. Defendant's motion to suppress his statements was denied following a Huntley hearing, as was his request for the personnel records of one of the correction officers who retrieved the weapon during the strip search. Pursuant to a plea agreement that included a waiver of appeal, defendant pleaded guilty to promoting prison contraband in the first degree in exchange for a prison sentence of 2 to 4 years to run consecutively to his current sentence, as a second felony offender. Defendant's subsequent motion to vacate the judgment of conviction was denied. He now appeals from the judgment of conviction and, with permission, from the order denying his motion to vacate.

Initially, defendant's oral waiver of appeal, which was unaccompanied by a written waiver, is not valid, as County Court failed to adequately convey that "the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty" (People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ; see People v. Larock, 139 A.D.3d 1241, 1242, 31 N.Y.S.3d 665 [2016], lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 932, 40 N.Y.S.3d 360, 63 N.E.3d 80 [2016] ). However, his claims that his guilty plea was not voluntary and that counsel failed to provide effective assistance are unpreserved for review on direct appeal, as the record does not disclose that he made a postallocution motion to withdraw his plea on this ground (see CPL 220.60[3] ). Moreover, he made no statements during the plea allocution that negated an element of the crime or otherwise called into doubt his guilt or the voluntariness of his plea so as to trigger the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665–666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ; People v. Beverly, 140 A.D.3d 1400, 1401, 34 N.Y.S.3d 245 [2016], lvs. denied 28 N.Y.3d 927, 933, 40 N.Y.S.3d 355, 63 N.E.3d 75 [2016] ). Were we to address these claims, we would find that the plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered with the aid of meaningful representation (see People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 382, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199 [2015] ; People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 [1993] ; People v. Briggs, 138 A.D.3d 1355, 1356, 30 N.Y.S.3d 748 [2016], lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 927, 40 N.Y.S.3d 355, 63 N.E.3d 75 [2016] ).

Next, defendant argues that due to an alleged defect or error in count two of the indictment, to which he pleaded guilty, he did not receive fair notice of the charge against him, requiring that his plea be vacated. While the charge specified that the dangerous contraband unlawfully possessed consisted of a "sharpened toothbrush," the People moved to amend the indictment to replace the specified contraband with a "scalpel-type" weapon;¹ the record does not reflect that defendant responded to that motion. However, by entering a knowing and voluntary guilty plea in which he admitted possessing a sharpened toothbrush, aware that this motion was pending, defendant forfeited any claim that there was a defect in the indictment or that the motion should have been granted (see People v. Cooper, 88 A.D.3d 1009, 1011, 931 N.Y.S.2d 346 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 952, 936 N.Y.S.2d 78, 959 N.E.2d 1027 [2011] ; People v. Brown, 75 A.D.3d 655, 656, 903 N.Y.S.2d 825 [2010] ; People v. Trank, 58 A.D.3d 1076, 1077, 872 N.Y.S.2d 595 [2009], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 860, 881 N.Y.S.2d 672, 909 N.E.2d 595 [2009] ). While a plea does "not waive jurisdictional defects in [the] indictment, an indictment is jurisdictionally defective only if the acts alleged to have been performed by the defendant do not constitute an actual crime" (People v. Hall, 125 A.D.3d 1095, 1096, 4 N.Y.S.3d 619 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ). Here, the indictment specified the Penal Law section under which defendant was charged and alleged all of the elements of the crime,² and sharpened objects capable of use as a weapon constitute dangerous contraband (see Penal Law § 205.00[4] ; see e.g. People v. Carter, 90 A.D.3d 1159, 1159–1160, 934 N.Y.S.2d 586 [2011] ; People v. Aponte, 60 A.D.3d 1199, 1200, 874 N.Y.S.2d 646 [2009] ; People v. DePolanco, 267 A.D.2d 777, 778, 700 N.Y.S.2d 514 [1999], lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 902, 707 N.Y.S.2d 387, 728 N.E.2d 986 [2000] ). Thus, the charge to which defendant pleaded guilty is a crime and the indictment was not jurisdictionally defective and was sufficient to apprise defendant of the charge (see People v. Brown, 75 A.D.3d at 656, 903 N.Y.S.2d 825 ; cf. People v. Hurell–Harring, 66 A.D.3d 1126, 1127–1128, 887 N.Y.S.2d 317 [2009] ).

Defendant also challenges County Court's denial, following a Huntley hearing, of his motion to suppress his inculpatory statement to the correction officer who was processing him into the facility when the metal was detected. The hearing testimony established that as defendant and other inmates were being processed for admission into the facility by one correction officer, defendant activated multiple metal detectors. In response to the officer's inquiry, defendant initially denied that he had anything on him but then admitted that he had a "scalpel between his butt cheeks." While defendant did not receive Miranda warnings at that point, "Miranda warnings are only required prior to questioning an inmate in a prison setting where the circumstances of the detention and interrogation ... entail added constraint that would lead a prison inmate reasonably to believe that there has been a restriction on that person's freedom over and above that of ordinary confinement in a correctional facility" (People v. Hadfield, 119 A.D.3d 1224, 1226, 990 N.Y.S.2d 341 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1002, 997 N.Y.S.2d 121, 21 N.E.3d 573 [2014] ).

Here, defendant was not shackled or isolated and was undergoing routine group intake processing, which we find "analogous to the relatively brief, generally public, or otherwise on-the-scene investigatory detentions in nonprison settings found not custodial for Miranda purposes" (People v. Alls, 83 N.Y.2d 94, 100, 608 N.Y.S.2d 139, 629 N.E.2d 1018 [1993], cert. denied 511 U.S. 1090, 114 S.Ct. 1850, 128 L.Ed.2d 474 [1994] ). As there was no proof of any additional constraint beyond that which would be routine in a correctional facility, this was not a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings, and the motion was properly denied (see id. ; People v. Hadfield, 119 A.D.3d at 1226, 990 N.Y.S.2d 341 ; People v. Passino, 53 A.D.3d 204, 205–206, 861 N.Y.S.2d 168 [2008], affd. 12 N.Y.3d 748, 876 N.Y.S.2d 700, 904 N.E.2d 837 [2009] ).

Defendant further contends that County Court erred in denying his request pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50–a for an in camera inspection of the personnel records of the correction officer involved in the retrieval of the contraband to determine if there were prior complaints by inmates. This provision authorizes disclosure of confidential records upon "a clear showing of facts sufficient to warrant the judge to request records for review" (Civil Rights Law § 50–a [2 ] ). To avoid "fishing expeditions" (Matter of Dunnigan v. Waverly Police Dept., 279 A.D.2d 833, 834, 719 N.Y.S.2d 399 [2001] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 710, 727 N.Y.S.2d 696, 751 N.E.2d 944 [2001] ), the party seeking disclosure must demonstrate, "in good faith, some factual predicate warranting the intrusion" (People v. Harris, 121 A.D.2d 788, 789, 504 N.Y.S.2d 552 [1986] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 770, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1054, 498 N.E.2d 156 [1986] ; accord Matter of Dunnigan v. Waverly Police Dept., 279 A.D.2d at 834, 719 N.Y.S.2d 399 ; see Matter of Daily Gazette Co. v. City of Schenectady, 93 N.Y.2d 145, 155–157, 688 N.Y.S.2d 472, 710 N.E.2d 1072 [1999] ). Defendant's generalized request...