People v. Harris

• Decision Date: 03 February 2017
• Citation: 147 A.D.3d 1375,47 N.Y.S.3d 540
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Randolph HARRIS, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 4.)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

147 A.D.3d 1375

47 N.Y.S.3d 540

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v. Randolph HARRIS, Defendant–Appellant.(Appeal No. 4.)

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

Feb. 3, 2017.

The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Timothy P. Murphy of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Michael J. Flaherty, Jr., Acting District Attorney, Buffalo (Matthew B. Powers of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, DeJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree (Penal Law § 240.50[3][a] ). In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment revoking his sentence of probation imposed upon his conviction, following his plea of guilty, of criminal contempt in the second degree (§ 215.50[3] ), and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment. In appeal No. 3, defendant appeals from a judgment revoking his sentence of probation imposed upon his conviction, following his plea of guilty, of criminal contempt in the second degree (§ 215.50[3] ), and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment. In appeal No. 4, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal contempt in the first degree (§ 215.51[c] ). Defendant pleaded guilty to the respective crimes and violations of probation in one plea proceeding.

Inasmuch as defendant has completed serving the sentences imposed in appeal Nos. 1 through 3, his contention in each appeal that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe has been rendered moot (see People v. Anderson, 66 A.D.3d 1431, 1431, 885 N.Y.S.2d 553, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 905, 895 N.Y.S.2d 319, 922 N.E.2d 908 ).

We reject defendant's contention in appeal No. 4 that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. Supreme Court advised defendant of the maximum sentences that could be imposed on each conviction (see People v. Lococo, 92 N.Y.2d 825, 827, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57, 699 N.E.2d 416 ), and the record, which includes an oral and written waiver of the right to appeal, establishes that defendant understood that he was waiving his right to appeal both the conviction and the sentence in each appeal. We thus conclude that the waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ), and that valid waiver encompasses defendant's contention concerning the severity of the sentence imposed in appeal No. 4 (see id. at 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ).

Nonetheless, we conclude that the court erred in directing that the definite sentences imposed in appeal Nos. 2 and 3 run consecutively to the 2 to 4 year indeterminate sentence imposed in appeal No. 4 (see Penal Law § 70.35 ; People v. Morris, 101 A.D.3d 1631, 1632, 956 N.Y.S.2d 363, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1007, 971 N.Y.S.2d 258, 993 N.E.2d 1281, reconsideration denied 21 N.Y.3d 1075, 974 N.Y.S.2d 325, 997 N.E.2d 150 ). "Although this issue was not...