People v. Halsey

• Docket Number: 928 KA 22-01559,No. 928 KA 22-01559
• Decision Date: 22 December 2023
• Citation: 2023 NY Slip Op 06652
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. CASEY J. HALSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2023 NY Slip Op 06652

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. CASEY J. HALSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

No. 928 KA 22-01559

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

December 22, 2023

ERICKSON WEBB SCOLTON & HAJDU, LAKEWOOD (LYLE T. HAJDU OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

CASEY J. HALSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANTPRO SE.

DONALD G. O'GEEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WARSAW (VINCENT A. HEMMING OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., BANNISTER, MONTOUR, NOWAK, AND DELCONTE, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court(Michael M Mohun, J.), rendered July 20, 2022.The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [3]).We affirm.

Contrary to defendant's contention in his main and pro se supplemental briefs, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty inasmuch as there is no "evidence of innocence fraud, or mistake in inducing the plea"(People v Fox, 204 A.D.3d 1452, 1453[4th Dept2022], lv denied39 N.Y.3d 940[2022][internal quotation marks omitted];see generallyCPL 220.60 [3];People v Fisher, 28 N.Y.3d 717, 721[2017]).

Specifically, we reject defendant's contention that he was fraudulently induced to plead guilty based upon a prior plea offer.Although the People initially offered a plea to assault in the second degree with "the minimum sentence authorized by law," that offer was conditioned upon defendant pleading as a second felony offender.At a later appearance, a new plea offer was made that was not conditioned upon defendant pleading guilty as a second felony offender and, at that appearance, the court unequivocally explained to defendant that the determinate sentence of imprisonment would be the same, i.e., three years, regardless of whether he was adjudicated a second felony offender after a second felony offender hearing.

We also reject defendant's contention in his main and pro se supplemental briefs that the court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the plea colloquy negated an element of the offense or should have prompted the court to inquire further as to a claim of self defense (see generallyPeople v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666[1988]).At no point during his plea colloquy did defendant negate an element of the offense or assert that he acted in self defense.Instead, defendant"knowingly and voluntarily admitted the factual allegations of the crime[ ] and made no protest of innocence" during the plea colloquy (People v Haffiz, 19 N.Y.3d 883, 884-885[2012]).Additionally, the evidence proffered by defendant on his motion, including two pages of the complainant's medical records, did not establish that defendant's admission to causing physical injury was factually incorrect (see generallyPeople v Greer, 189 A.D.3d 2142, 2143[4th Dept2020], lv denied37 N.Y.3d...