People v. Gerald

• Decision Date: 29 September 2021
• Docket Number: 2021-05130,S.C.I. 45/18
• Parties: The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Thomas R. Gerald, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v.
Thomas R. Gerald, appellant.

No. 2021-05130

S.C.I. No. 45/18

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

September 29, 2021

Matthew Muraskin, Port Jefferson, NY, for appellant.

Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Nicole L. Gallo of counsel), for respondent.

HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Stephen L. Braslow, J.), rendered November 8, 2018, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, on the facts, and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, the defendant's application to withdraw his plea of guilty is granted, the plea is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings on the superior court information.

The defendant was charged with various crimes, including, as relevant here, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The defendant entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which he agreed to plead guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.03[3]), in exchange for a promised sentence of 3½ years of imprisonment to be followed by a period of 5 years of postrelease supervision.

Prior to his sentencing date, the defendant made a written motion to withdraw his plea of guilty pursuant to CPL 220.60(3). The defendant argued, in essence, that he pleaded guilty due to a misunderstanding of the legal definition of constructive possession, and due to a further misunderstanding of the People's evidence of his guilt. The defendant asserted that these misunderstandings were due to the ineffective assistance of his prior attorney. The People opposed the defendant's motion. In an order dated September 25, 2018, the County Court denied the defendant's motion, without holding a hearing.

After the defendant's written motion was denied, he sent the County Court a letter in which he again asserted his innocence and provided additional facts relevant to that claim. At his sentencing proceeding, the defendant orally alleged that he was innocent, and that he had only pleaded guilty due to the ineffective assistance of his attorneys. The People made no response to the defendant's application to withdraw his plea at the sentencing proceeding. The court declined to address the defendant's arguments or inquire further into his allegations, in effect, denying his application. The court sentenced the defendant, in accordance with the plea agreement, to a term of imprisonment of 3½ years to be followed by a period of postrelease supervision of 5 years.

On appeal, the defendant contends that the County Court should have granted his application to withdraw his plea of guilty at the sentencing proceeding. We agree.

As an initial matter, the People contend that the defendant validly waived his right to appeal and they seek to enforce that purported waiver on this appeal. However, since the only substantive arguments raised on the defendant's appeal concern the validity of his plea, this Court "need not reach the People's contention regarding the validity of the defendant's appeal waiver" (People v Adames, 173 A.D.3d 1058, 1058...