People v. Leasure
| Decision Date | 13 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | 2017–03897,Ind. Nos. 987/15, 1415/16,2017–03899 |
| Citation | 177 A.D.3d 770,114 N.Y.S.3d 367 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edward R. LEASURE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
177 A.D.3d 770
114 N.Y.S.3d 367
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Edward R. LEASURE, Appellant.
2017–03897
2017–03899
Ind. Nos. 987/15, 1415/16
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—September 10, 2019
November 13, 2019
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Michael Arthus of counsel), for appellant.
John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Antara D. Kanth of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, BETSY BARROS, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Barry A. Schwartz, J.), both rendered March 9, 2017, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts) under Indictment No. 987/15, and conspiracy in the second degree under Indictment No. 1415/16, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
During the morning of March 16, 2015, the defendant allegedly entered two separate houses while displaying what appeared to be a firearm to the residents of those dwellings. He was arrested later the same day and subsequently charged in an eight-count indictment, inter alia, with two counts of burglary in the first degree. While detained in jail awaiting trial, the defendant was charged in a second indictment, inter alia, with conspiracy in the second degree based on his alleged attempt to hire a hitman to kill witnesses to the crimes with which he was charged in the first indictment. On August 22, 2016, the defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary in the first degree and one count of conspiracy in the second degree in exchange for sentences of concurrent terms of imprisonment not to exceed 24 years. On March 9, 2017, the defendant was sentenced to two concurrent determinate terms of imprisonment of 24 years followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision on the convictions of burglary in the first degree, and an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 12 to 24 years on the conviction of conspiracy in the second degree, to run concurrently with the sentences imposed on the convictions of burglary in the first degree. On the same date, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's pro se motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty on the ground that they were involuntarily entered due to his having been under the influence of psychotropic medications.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his waiver of the right to appeal was valid (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ). " ‘A waiver of the right to appeal is
effective only so long as the record demonstrates that it was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily’ " ( People v. Batista, 167 A.D.3d 69, 73, 86 N.Y.S.3d 492, quoting People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). Here, the record demonstrates that the Supreme Court's colloquy with the defendant, supplemented by a written waiver of the right to appeal on each indictment executed by the defendant, "sufficiently apprised him of the nature and significance of the right that he was being asked to waive, and that the defendant
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Coverdale
...to understand the proceedings against him or that he was unable to assist in his defense (see CPL 730.30[1] ; People v. Leasure , 177 A.D.3d 770, 772, 114 N.Y.S.3d 367 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's explanation, in sum and substance, that the defendant would be subje......
-
People v. Arce
...at the plea and sentencing proceedings were appropriate and did not suggest that she was incapacitated (see People v. Leasure , 177 A.D.3d 770, 772, 114 N.Y.S.3d 367 ; People v. Colemanorange , 151 A.D.3d at 739, 55 N.Y.S.3d 439 ). Further, the fact that the defendant may have had a history......
-
People v. Torres
...because he did not move to withdraw his plea of guilty on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence (see People v. Leasure, 177 A.D.3d 770, 772, 114 N.Y.S.3d 367 ; People v. Rodriguez–Abreu, 170 A.D.3d 895, 896, 93 N.Y.S.3d 858 ). In any event, the defendant's contention is without me......
-
People v. Watson
...of sentence (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665–666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Leasure, 177 A.D.3d 770, 772, 114 N.Y.S.3d 367 ). Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here, since the plea allocution did not cast signific......