People v. Lawson

• Decision Date: 05 May 1983
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robin LAWSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 99

463 N.Y.S.2d 99

94 A.D.2d 809

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robin LAWSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

May 5, 1983.

William Gray, Elmira, for appellant.

James T. Hayden, Chemung County Dist. Atty., Elmira, for respondent.

Before SWEENEY, J.P., and MAIN, CASEY, MIKOLL and LEVINE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County, rendered March 14, 1980, convicting defendant upon his pleas of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree and robbery in the second degree.

The trial of defendant on the indictment charging him with burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the third degree commenced February 5, 1980. On February 9, 1980, after the People had called a number of witnesses, defendant pleaded guilty to both counts of the indictment on which he was being tried and to robbery in the second degree in full satisfaction of the second pending indictment. He has appealed from both convictions. The first of the two grounds upon which he seeks reversal is that he was coerced into pleading guilty by reason of numerous erroneous adverse rulings by County Court during the course of the trial. The record belies defendant's claim that his plea was made involuntarily. Defendant was fully and vigorously represented by counsel throughout the trial and counsel similarly fully participated in the plea-taking. The plea was a negotiated one in which the court agreed to consider giving defendant a sentence of 5 to 10 years on the robbery conviction, to run concurrently with the sentences on the burglary and grand larceny convictions, but consecutively to a sentence on a prior conviction defendant was then serving. Defendant fully admitted in his own words his participation in each crime, with awareness of the possible penalties and exposure to being sentenced as a predicate and violent felony offender. He also conceded in detail the falsity of his alibi defense. Before the plea was accepted, his attorney stated without contradiction that he had advised defendant what pleading guilty "may mean for any future appeals". The record is thus clear that defendant was not operating under any compulsion in pleading guilty. It may well be that adverse rulings by the court influenced his decision. No doubt the prospects of receiving less than the maximum sentence on the robbery conviction, to be served concurrently with the sentences for the companion convictions, were also an inducement. But there is nothing in the record to indicate that defendant was not free to act or not act upon those factors in making his determination whether to continue or to abort the trial. The Second Department, in rejecting a similar contention in People v. Jones, 81 A.D.2d 22, 440 N.Y.S.2d 248, aptly stated:

The adverse ruling on his suppression motion and the prospect of receiving a...