People v. Giddings
| Decision Date | 30 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | 110368 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Patricia GIDDINGS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Craig Meyerson, Peru, for appellant.
Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Jaime A. Douthat of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ.
Egan Jr., J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Bruno, J.), rendered November 13, 2017, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of manslaughter in the second degree.
Defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the second degree, making a punishable false written statement and endangering the welfare of a child. The charges stemmed from an incident in which defendant's two-year-old son asphyxiated when his neck became lodged in a notch cut into a makeshift plywood barrier that had been installed to confine him within his bedroom. Defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the second degree in full satisfaction of the indictment and purportedly waived her right to appeal. No sentencing commitment was made as part of the plea agreement. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to 4 to 12 years in prison, and she appeals.
Initially, we agree with defendant that she did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive her right to appeal. The written appeal waiver executed in open court contained overbroad language that indicated that defendant was waiving "all post-conviction remedies." County Court did not overcome this overbroad language "by ensuring that defendant understood the distinction that some appellate review survived the appeal waiver" ( People v. Lafond, 189 A.D.3d 1824, 1825, 137 N.Y.S.3d 222 [2020] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1121, 146 N.Y.S.3d 193, 169 N.E.3d 551 [2021] ; see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 561, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019] ; People v. Lunan, 196 A.D.3d 969, 970, 148 N.Y.S.3d 408 [2021] ).
We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in not conducting a summary hearing regarding certain information contained in the presentence investigation report that she disputed (see CPL 400.10[3] ). County Court assured defendant that it would take the additional information provided by her into consideration and directed that her sentencing memoranda be made part of the presentence investigation report, and the record does not reflect that the ensuing sentence "turn[ed] on any factual disputes requiring further exploration" ( People v. Yomtov, 19 A.D.3d 147, 147, 796 N.Y.S.2d 348 [2005] ; see People v. Russell, 133 A.D.3d 1199, 1200, 20 N.Y.S.3d 760 [2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1149, 32 N.Y.S.3d 63, 51 N.E.3d 574 [2016] ). Defendant's claim that the sentence violated her right to equal protection under the State and Federal Constitutions is unpreserved for our review as she did not raise this specific objection at the plea or sentencing proceedings or make an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Wildrick, 175 A.D.3d 1674, 1674–1675, 106 N.Y.S.3d 649 [2019] ; People v. Creech, 165 A.D.3d 1491, 1494, 87 N.Y.S.3d 384 [2018] ; People v. Brewster, 161 A.D.3d 1309, 1310, 77 N.Y.S.3d 205 [2018] ).
Finally, we are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive. Although her boyfriend received a lesser sentence for his involvement in the crime, that fact does not establish that the sentence that defendant received was unduly severe (see People v. Williams, 156 A.D.3d 1224, 1231, 69 N.Y.S.3d 367 [2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1018, 78 N.Y.S.3d 288, 102 N.E.3d 1069 [2018] ; People v. Foli, 145 A.D.3d 1322, 1323, 42 N.Y.S.3d 871 [2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1031, 62 N.Y.S.3d 300, 84 N.E.3d 972 [2017] ). The sentence imposed was within the permissible...
To continue reading
Request your trial