People v. Lyman

• Decision Date: 03 July 2014
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raymond LYMAN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

119 A.D.3d 968
988 N.Y.S.2d 717
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04974

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Raymond LYMAN, Appellant.

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

July 3, 2014.

[988 N.Y.S.2d 719]

John A. Cirando, Syracuse, for appellant.

Derek P. Champagne, District Attorney, Malone (Gary M. Pasqua of counsel), for respondent.

Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., STEIN, EGAN JR., DEVINE and CLARK, JJ.

CLARK, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered June 25, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

In satisfaction of a five-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the fourth degree, admitting that he stole a rifle from his father's home that he knew belonged to another person. During the plea colloquy, defendant also waived his right to appeal on the record, both verbally and in writing. He was promised a sentence of time served with five years of probation if he successfully completed substance abuse treatment, continued to test negative for prohibited substances, and followed all conditions of his interim release on probation. After defendant was discharged from treatment due to opiate use and failed to report for his presentence investigation interview, County Court concluded that he had violated the terms of the plea agreement and imposed a prison sentence of 1 to 4 years, along with restitution in the amount of $500. Defendant now appeals, arguing that his guilty plea was involuntary and that the waiver of his right to appeal was invalid. He further claims that County Court erred in ordering restitution, and challenges the court's imposition of an enhanced sentence.

Initially, we reject defendant's claim that his appeal waiver was invalid. During the plea colloquy, County Court adequately explained the nature of the rights that defendant was waiving, the appeal rights that he could not waive, and that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty ( see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264–265, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 [2011];People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256–257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ). Defendant orally confirmed that he understood the rights that he was relinquishing and that those rights were separate and distinct from the rights forfeited as a result of his guilty plea ( cf. People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d at 267, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645). Defendant also signed a detailed written waiver of appeal in open court that both mirrored County Court's colloquy and indicated that defendant had been given sufficient time to discuss the waiver with counsel and was proceeding knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily. Therefore, contrary to defendant's contentions on appeal, County Court “carefully explained the appeal waiver and distinguished it from the other rights that defendant was...