People v. Jenkins
Citation | 138 A.D.3d 102,24 N.Y.S.3d 639 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William JENKINS, Defendant–Appellant. |
Decision Date | 11 February 2016 |
Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Adrienne M. Gantt of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Hope Korenstein of counsel), for respondent.
PETER TOM, J.P., DAVID FRIEDMAN, DAVID B. SAXE, BARBARA R. KAPNICK, JJ.
TOM, J.P.
In this appeal, defendant asks this Court to exercise its interest-of-justice power to review and reduce his sentence, negotiated pursuant to a plea agreement, on the grounds that his waiver of his right to appeal was invalid and that his sentence was excessive.
In February 2013, defendant was arrested after selling crack cocaine and marijuana to an undercover police officer. After apprehending him, the police recovered two credit cards and one photo ID card from his pocket, all belonging to an individual who was not defendant. Defendant was indicted for one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, one count of criminal sale of marijuana in the fourth degree, and two counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree.
Before trial, defendant agreed to plead guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree in satisfaction of all charges and in exchange for concurrent sentences of 2 ½ years on the criminal sale count and 1 ½ to 3 years on the stolen property count. As part of the bargain, he agreed to waive his right to appeal and judgment was entered as agreed upon.
Notwithstanding the waiver, defendant appealed to this Court asserting that his appeal waiver was invalid and unenforceable and that his sentence was excessive and should be modified in the interest of justice. We find that the record establishes that defendant was properly apprised of the implications of waiving his right to appeal and that defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, which forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256–257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ).
The record discloses that upon accepting defendant's guilty plea, the court, in a lengthy plea allocution, and after explaining all the "trial rights" defendant was waiving and ensuring he spoke to his attorney about the plea, and was satisfied with his legal help, then engaged in the following colloquy:
This language exceeds the colloquy that provided for a valid waiver in People v. Nicholson, one of the cases consolidated under People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 254–255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145. The trial court ensured that defendant understood that the right to appeal was separate from the "panoply of trial rights automatically forfeited upon pleading guilty," and advised him that while he "ordinarily retains the right to an appeal even after pleading guilty, in this case he was being offered a particular plea by the prosecution on the condition that he give up that right" ( Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; see also People v. Rahman, 129 A.D.3d 553, 554, 13 N.Y.S.3d 14 [1st Dept.2015], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 933, 17 N.Y.S.3d 96, 38 N.E.3d 842 [2015] [] ). As was the case in Nicholson, it would have been better to secure a written waiver of the right to appeal. However, the record is sufficient to establish that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal ( Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145, citing People v. Calvi, 89 N.Y.2d 868, 871, 653 N.Y.S.2d 89, 675 N.E.2d 843 [1996] ).
A defendant who has validly waived his right to appeal may not invoke this Court's interest-of-justice jurisdiction to reduce a bargained-for sentence ( Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). "By pleading guilty and waiving the right to appeal, a defendant has forgone review of the terms of the plea, including harshness or excessiveness of the sentence" ( id. at 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ).
To be sure, as ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Bryant
...cannot "invoke the court's review power" to disturb the terms of the negotiated plea agreement (People v. Jenkins, ––– A.D.3d ––––, 24 N.Y.S.3d 639 [1st Dept.2016] [appeal no. 16716]; Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [fairness and finality are promoted only if parti......
-
People v. Jackson
...claims (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ; People v. Jenkins, ––– A.D.3d –––, 24 N.Y.S.3d 639 [1st Dept.2016] ). The court elicited defendant's appeal waiver separately from its discussion of the trial rights that defendant automatically f......