People v. Griffin

• Citation: 88 N.Y.S.3d 348 (Mem),167 A.D.3d 934
• Decision Date: 19 December 2018
• Docket Number: 2016–07860,Ind. No. 1317–15
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Christopher GRIFFIN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

167 A.D.3d 934

88 N.Y.S.3d 348 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,

v.Christopher GRIFFIN, Appellant.

2016–07860

Ind. No. 1317–15

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

Submitted—June 22, 2018

December 19, 2018

The Law Offices of Christopher J. Cassar, P.C., Huntington, NY, for appellant.

Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Croce of counsel), for respondent.

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., WILLIAM F. MASTRO, BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Richard Ambro, J.), rendered June 22, 2016, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant validly waived his right to appeal (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses review of his challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution (see People v. Mendoza, 153 A.D.3d 1364, 1364, 60 N.Y.S.3d 495 ; People v. Smith, 146 A.D.3d 904, 904, 44 N.Y.S.3d 771 ; People v. Thompson, 143 A.D.3d 1007, 1008, 39 N.Y.S.3d 800 ). The defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal also precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ).

The defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent survives a valid appeal waiver (see People v. Mendoza, 153 A.D.3d at 1364, 60 N.Y.S.3d 495 ; People v. Smith, 146 A.D.3d at 904, 44 N.Y.S.3d 771 ). However, the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Williams, 27 N.Y.3d 212, 32 N.Y.S.3d 17, 51 N.E.3d 528 ). The exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here, because the defendant's plea allocution did not cast significant doubt upon his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Mendoza, 153 A.D.3d at 1365, 60 N.Y.S.3d 495 ; People v. Hardman, 135 A.D.3d 785, 786, 22 N.Y.S.3d 590 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the postplea assertions of innocence attributed to him in the presentence report did not call into question the voluntariness of the plea and did not obligate the County Court to conduct any further inquiry (see People v. Caceres, 155 A.D.3d 972, 63 N.Y.S.3d 899 ; People v. Maldonado, 144 A.D.3d 706, 707, 39 N.Y.S.3d 826 ; People v. Ellis, 142 A.D.3d 509...