People v. Kimball

• Docket Number: 111550, 113144
• Decision Date: 09 February 2023
• Citation: People v. Kimball, 213 A.D.3d 1028, 183 N.Y.S.3d 198 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Karl W. KIMBALL, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

213 A.D.3d 1028

183 N.Y.S.3d 198

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Karl W. KIMBALL, Appellant.

111550, 113144

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

Calendar Date: January 10, 2023

Decided and Entered: February 9, 2023

Rural Law Center of New York, Inc., Castleton (Kristin A. Bluvas of counsel), for appellant.

Clea Weiss, Special Prosecutor, Ithaca, for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Fisher, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Reynolds Fitzgerald, J. Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County(James A. Murphy III, J.), rendered May 29, 2019, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree, and (2) by permission, from an order of said court, entered October 14, 2021, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction, without a hearing.

Defendant was charged by felony complaint with sexual abuse in the first degree based upon conduct involving a child who was less than 11 years old.Following the filing of various pro se motions and the assignment of counsel, defendant, who had a prior felony sex conviction, waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted pursuant to a superior court information charging him with one count of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree with the understanding that he would be sentenced to a prison term of four years followed by a period of postrelease supervision ranging from 5 to 15 years.The plea agreement also required defendant to waive his right to appeal.Defendant pleaded guilty in conformity with the plea agreement, and County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to a prison term of four years followed by 15 years of postrelease supervision.Two years later, defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction contending that his plea was involuntary and that he had been denied his right to a speedy trial and to the effective assistance of counsel.The People opposed the motion, and, by order entered October 14, 2021, County Court denied the motion without a hearing.Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction and, by permission, from the order denying his postconviction motion.

Preliminarily, the People concede – and our review of the record confirms – that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid.Accordingly, defendant's challenge to the perceived severity of his sentence is not precluded (seePeople v. Smith,208 A.D.3d 1538, 1539, 174 N.Y.S.3d 614[3d Dept.2022] ).That said, upon due consideration of all of the relevant factors (see e.g.People v. Quick,207 A.D.3d 954, 955, 170 N.Y.S.3d 523[3d Dept.2022] ), including the nature of the underlying conduct, we do not find the sentence imposed to be unduly harsh or severe (seeCPL 470.15[6][b] ).Contrary to defendant's assertion, the mere fact that other defendants convicted of the same or similar crimes received lesser terms of imprisonment or periods of postrelease supervision "is of no moment, as no two defendants are quite alike even if they have committed, in legal definition, identical offenses"( People v. Manley,70 A.D.3d 1125, 1125, 894 N.Y.S.2d 575[3d Dept.2010][internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

Defendant next contends that his plea was involuntary because County Court failed to properly apprise him of his Boykin rights and, further, provided inconsistent information regarding defendant's sentencing exposure.Inasmuch as defendant did not move to withdraw his plea despite an opportunity to do so, such issues are unpreserved for our review (seePeople v. Podeswa,205 A.D.3d 1139, 1140, 167 N.Y.S.3d 640[3d Dept.2022], lv denied38 N.Y.3d 1135, 172 N.Y.S.3d 857, 193 N.E.3d 522[2022];People v. Lumpkin,201 A.D.3d 1257, 1257, 157 N.Y.S.3d 798[3d Dept.2022] ).The narrow exception to the preservation requirement was not triggered as defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that negated an element of the charged crime, were inconsistent with his guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea (seePeople v. Nichols,194 A.D.3d 1114, 1115, 146 N.Y.S.3d 699[3d Dept.2021], lv denied37 N.Y.3d 973, 150 N.Y.S.3d 700, 172 N.E.3d 812[2021] ).In any event, although County Court did not expressly advise defendant that he would be giving up his right against self-incrimination, "[a] plea need not be invalidated simply because the trial judge failed to enumerate all the constitutional rights being waived by a guilty plea"( People v. Crampton,201 A.D.3d 1020, 1023, 159 N.Y.S.3d 263[3d Dept.2022][internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied37 N.Y.3d 1160, 160 N.Y.S.3d 690, 181 N.E.3d 1118[2022];seePeople v. Nichols,194 A.D.3d at 1115, 146 N.Y.S.3d 699 ), and defendant's sentencing exposure, including the range encompassing the period of postrelease supervision that could be imposed, was accurately set forth at the outset of the plea colloquy (comparePeople v. Lumpkin,201 A.D.3d at 1257–1258, 157 N.Y.S.3d 798 ).

Defendant also challenges the voluntariness of his plea based upon the ineffective assistance of counsel – specifically, counsel's failure to properly investigate and/or advise him of a potential intoxication defense.As defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is premised upon both record-based and nonrecord-based allegations, it is properly reviewed in its entirety in the context of defendant's appeal from the denial of his CPL 440.10 motion(seePeople v. Fish,208 A.D.3d 1546, 1548, 175 N.Y.S.3d 602[3d Dept.2022];People v. Goodwalt,205 A.D.3d 1070, 1073, 167 N.Y.S.3d 250[3d Dept.2022], lv denied38 N.Y.3d 1071, 171 N.Y.S.3d 452, 191 N.E.3d 404[2022] ).In this regard, although defendant indeed moved to vacate the judgment of conviction based upon, among other things, the ineffective assistance of counsel, counsel's affirmation in support thereof makes only a general reference to trial counsel's failure to explore defendant's "options" or "discuss a defense strategy" with defendant.To the extent that defendant's accompanying affidavit elaborated upon this claim, defendant chastised counsel for failing to investigate a potential alibi defense and/or the complaining witnesses’ motives to lie.Noticeably absent from defendant's CPL 440.10 motion is any mention of a potential intoxication defense or...