People v. Jones

• Decision Date: 04 June 2020
• Docket Number: 109886
• Citation: 184 A.D.3d 901,123 N.Y.S.3d 546 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Massi JONES, Also Known as Black, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

184 A.D.3d 901

123 N.Y.S.3d 546 (Mem)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Massi JONES, Also Known as Black, Appellant.

109886

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

Calendar Date: May 21, 2020

Decided and Entered: June 4, 2020

Brian M. Callahan, Albany, for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Mulvey, Aarons, Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Egan Jr., J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Sypniewski, J.), rendered October 31, 2017, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was charged in an indictment with multiple drug-related crimes. Counsel from the Public Defender's office was assigned to represent him. Early in the proceedings, it was disclosed that an actual or potential conflict of interest existed with regard to counsel's representation of defendant at trial due to his representation of a witness, whose identity was not disclosed. In addition, defendant was apparently dissatisfied with counsel's representation and lodged complaints with County Court. In accordance with County Court's order, counsel continued to represent defendant during the course of the Huntley and Wade hearings that followed. At the conclusion of these hearings, counsel was relieved and the Conflict Defender was assigned to represent defendant. Prior to trial, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree in satisfaction of the charges contained in the indictment, and he also waived his right to appeal. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, he was sentenced as a second felony offender to 4½ years in prison, followed by three years of postrelease supervision, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on an unrelated crime. Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered. Although this claim is not precluded by defendant's unchallenged waiver of the right to appeal, it has not been preserved for our review as the record does not reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Drake, 179 A.D.3d 1221, 1222, 117 N.Y.S.3d 353 [2020] ; People v. Almonte, 179 A.D.3d 1222, 1224, 116 N.Y.S.3d 782 [2020] ). Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable as defendant did not make any statements during the proceedings that negated his guilt or called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Sabin, 179 A.D.3d 1401, 1401, 118 N.Y.S.3d 769 [2020]...