People v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 13 February 2014
• Citation: 114 A.D.3d 807,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 01018,979 N.Y.S.2d 704
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Robert L. JACKSON, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

114 A.D.3d 807

979 N.Y.S.2d 704

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 01018

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Robert L. JACKSON, appellant.

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

Feb. 13, 2014.

Mark Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas C. Costello of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Braslow, J.), rendered September 8, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and kidnapping in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly or voluntarily entered is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise the issue in the County Court( seeCPL 470.05[2];People v. Folger,110 A.D.3d 736, 971 N.Y.S.2d 890;People v. Nugent,109 A.D.3d 625, 970 N.Y.S.2d 634;cf.People v. Tyrell,22 N.Y.3d 359, 981 N.Y.S.2d 336, 4 N.E.3d 346[2013] ).In any event, the contention is without merit.Although the defendant was not advised by the County Court of each of the federal constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty, a plea of guilty “will not be invalidated ‘solely because the Trial Judge failed to specifically enumerate all the rights to which the defendant was entitled and to elicit from him or her a list of detailed waivers before accepting the guilty plea’ ”(People v. Tyrell,22 N.Y.3d 359, 365, 981 N.Y.S.2d 336, 4 N.E.3d 346, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08288, *5, quotingPeople v. Harris,61 N.Y.2d 9, 16, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170).Here, since the defendant was expressly advised by the County Court that a plea of guilty involved the waiver of certain constitutional rights, and in light of the defendant's background, the rationality of the plea, and the other assurances of voluntariness provided on the record, the record as a whole reflected a knowing and voluntary plea of guilty and waiver of constitutional rights ( seePeople v. Harris,61 N.Y.2d at 21–22, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170;People v. Sargent,100 A.D.2d 978, 475 N.Y.S.2d 117;People v. Mitchell,121 A.D.2d 403, 502 N.Y.S.2d 805).

Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's challenge to his adjudication as a second felony offender is not precluded by his purported waiver of his right to appeal since that waiver was invalid ( seePeople v. Elmer,19 N.Y.3d 501, 950 N.Y.S.2d 77, 973 N.E.2d 172;People v. Salgado,111 A.D.3d 859, 975 N.Y.S.2d 172;People v. Oquendo,105 A.D.3d 447, 447–448, 963 N.Y.S.2d 71;People v. Grant,83 A.D.3d 862, 863, 921 N.Y.S.2d 285).During the plea proceeding, the defendant was merely told by the County Court that it “want[ed]” him to waive his right to appeal and that, after sentencing, the case would be over ( seePeople v. Boustani,300 A.D.2d 313, 314, 752 N.Y.S.2d 683[“bare inquiry” that defendant understood that he was waiving his right to appeal was insufficient to produce a valid waiver];see alsoPeople v. Salgado,111 A.D.3d at 859, 975 N.Y.S.2d 172[“terse colloquy at the plea allocution failed to sufficiently advise the defendant of the nature of his right to appeal”];People v. Nugent,109 A.D.3d at 625–626, 970 N.Y.S.2d 634;People v. Gheradi,68 A.D.3d 892, 893, 890 N.Y.S.2d 122).Further, the court's statement—“do you understand that when I sentence you, I want you to give up or waive your right to appeal”—failed to make clear that the waiver of the right to appeal was a condition imposed by the plea agreement, and one to which the defendant was voluntarily agreeing ( seePeople v. Oquendo,105 A.D.3d at 447–448, 963 N.Y.S.2d 71[“By conflating the waiver of appeal with the sentence to be imposed, the court failed to adequately ensure that defendant had a ‘full appreciation of the consequences of [the] waiver’ ”] ).Lastly, the defendant's written waiver did not cure the defects in the oral colloquy.To the contrary, it is not clear from this record that the defendant, who did not personally sign the waiver, even read the waiver, discussed it with counsel, or was aware of its contents ( seePeople v. Callahan,80 N.Y.2d 273, 283, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108;People v. Elmer,19 N.Y.3d 501, 950 N.Y.S.2d 77, 973 N.E.2d 172;People v. Grant,83 A.D.3d 862, 863, 921 N.Y.S.2d 285;People v. McCaskell,206 A.D.2d 547, 548, 615 N.Y.S.2d 55).Moreover, the waiver did not contain any explanation of the nature of the right to appeal or the...