People v. Hidalgo
| Citation | 698 N.E.2d 46,675 N.Y.S.2d 327,91 N.Y.2d 733 |
| Parties | , 698 N.E.2d 46, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5175 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sarita HIDALGO, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 04 June 1998 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
The issue on this appeal is whether a defendant who enters into a plea bargain without a specific sentence promise and waives the right to appeal, loses the right to challenge the sentence in an intermediate appellate court as harsh and excessive. We hold that defendant's unrestricted waiver of the right to appeal in this case encompassed her right to review of the sentence as harsh and excessive.
On February 24, 1996, defendant participated in a street fight, during which one of her cohorts slashed a woman in the face. On June 27, 1996, the Erie County Grand Jury indicted defendant on one count of assault in the first degree. On October 2, 1996, defendant entered a plea of guilty to attempted assault in the first degree in full satisfaction of the indictment. The negotiated plea agreement did not include a specific sentence commitment and left sentencing to the discretion of the court. At the time of the plea, the court reviewed all aspects of the plea agreement with defendant and explained the range of the court's sentencing options, including the maximum incarceration time and the maximum fine. During the plea colloquy, defendant expressly waived her right to appeal her "conviction." On November 22, 1996, defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one to three years.
Defendant appealed to the Appellate Division, arguing that her sentence was harsh and excessive. The Appellate Division, without opinion, unanimously affirmed defendant's judgment of conviction (242 A.D.2d ----, 664 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1997 WL 606701, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op 07974). A Judge of this Court granted leave to appeal and we now affirm.
People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022, held that a defendant may waive the right to appeal as part of a plea bargain. In Seaberg, we recognized that plea bargains are a vital and necessary part of the criminal justice system. We noted that plea bargains help conserve prosecutorial and judicial resources, provide prompt resolution of criminal proceedings, and permit swift and certain punishment of law violators (id., at 7, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022). We also determined that these public interest concerns are furthered by enforcing waivers of the right to appeal negotiated pleas or sentences (id., at 10, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022). The case noted that the right to appeal a plea or sentence, while important, fell outside the class of limited rights for which a defendant cannot waive appellate review because of society's interest in the integrity of the criminal process (id., at 9, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022). The waiver of the right to appeal is enforceable as long as the waiver is on the record and is voluntary, knowing and intelligent (id., at 11-12, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022), and does not implicate those categories of claims that survive appeal waivers under our case law (see, e.g., People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108).
A number of cases exploring the scope of a waiver of the right to appeal followed (see, People v. Allen, 82 N.Y.2d 761, 603 N.Y.S.2d 820, 623 N.E.2d 1170; People v. Callahan, supra; People v. Karim, 146 A.D.2d 805, 538 N.Y.S.2d 472; People v. Smith, 142 A.D.2d 195, 535 N.Y.S.2d 732). In each case, the sweep of the waiver of the right to appeal encompassed all appealable issues of the case, including those relating to the sentence, except as to those claims which important public policy concerns dictate survive a bargained-for waiver (see, People v. Allen, supra, at 763, 603 N.Y.S.2d 820, 623 N.E.2d 1170; People v. Callahan, supra, at 281, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108; People v. Karim, supra, at 806, 538 N.Y.S.2d 472; People v. Smith, supra, at 201, 535 N.Y.S.2d 732).
Recently, a line of cases has emerged involving an added twist on the scope of an appeal waiver--does an appeal waiver encompass issues relating to the sentence where defendant has not received a specific sentence promise at the time of the plea colloquy and waiver?
The Departments of the Appellate Division have split on this issue. The Fourth Department has held that an appeal waiver encompasses issues relating to the sentence, even where defendant has not received a specific sentence promise (see, e.g., People v. Chandler, 214 A.D.2d 1027, 626 N.Y.S.2d 893). By contrast, the Second and Third Departments have held that a defendant does not waive the right to review of the sentence if defendant is unaware of the sentence at the time of the appeal waiver (see, People v. Leach, 203 A.D.2d 484, 611 N.Y.S.2d 17; People v. Maye, 143 A.D.2d 483, 532 N.Y.S.2d 609).
Defendant argues that she never explicitly waived her right to seek review of her sentence, and that her general waiver did not encompass appellate review of her sentence because she did not know her specific sentence at the time of the waiver. We disagree.
The initial determination as to whether a particular waiver is knowing, intelligent and voluntary is made by the trial court at the time of the plea/waiver colloquy. The trial court must assess a number of relevant factors, including the nature and terms of the agreement, the reasonableness of the bargain, and the age and experience of the accused (People v. Callahan, supra, 80 N.Y.2d, at 280, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108; People v. Seaberg, supra, 74 N.Y.2d, at 11, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022). The role of the appellate courts is to review the record to ensure that the defendant's waiver reflects a knowing, intelligent and voluntary choice (id.). In this case, defendant does not argue that the waiver was involuntary. Instead, she argues that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brown
... ... In the absence of a thorough, on-the-record exploration of a defendant's understanding of the appeal waiver, the determination as to its validity frequently turns on highly nuanced facts ( compare People v. Maracle, 19 N.Y.3d 925, 950 N.Y.S.2d 498, 973 N.E.2d 1272, with People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46 ). Such nuanced determinations have been criticized as being inconsistent ( see generally People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d at 268, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 [Read, J., dissenting] ). It may therefore be helpful to trial courts and the People, ... ...
-
People v. Thomas
...623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ; People v. Lococo, 92 N.Y.2d 825, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57, 699 N.E.2d 416 [1998] ; People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46 [1998] ; People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022 [1989] ).The majority accurately articulates t......
-
People v. Carryl
... ... Bradshaw , 18 N.Y.3d at 264267, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; People v. Ramos , 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222 ; People v. Lopez , 6 N.Y.3d at 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Hidalgo , 91 N.Y.2d 733, 735, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46 ). Accordingly, the defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Hardy , 120 A.D.3d 1358, 1358, 991 N.Y.S.2d 904 ; People v. Arteev , 120 A.D.3d 1255, ... ...
-
People v. Lewis
... ... Bones, 148 A.D.3d 1793, 1793, 49 N.Y.S.3d 335 ). That valid waiver is a "general unrestricted waiver" that encompasses his contention that the sentence on the final three counts of the indictment is unduly harsh and severe ( People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 737, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46 ; see Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). Finally, defendant contends that the sentence on the first two counts of the indictment is unduly harsh and severe. Contrary to defendant's contention, we perceive "nothing in ... ...
-
Appeals
...so long as they are knowing and voluntary. [ See, e.g., United States v. Khattak, 273 F.3d 557, 563 (3d Cir. 2001); People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 698 N.E.2d 46, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327 (1998) (unrestricted waiver includes right to appeal sentence even though sentence not specifically mentioned......