People v. Mattison
| Decision Date | 10 June 2010 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Andy R. MATTISON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
74 A.D.3d 1495
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Andy R. MATTISON, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
June 10, 2010.
Frank A. Sarat, Homer, for appellant.
Joseph G. Fazzary, District Attorney, Watkins Glen, for respondent.
Before: PETERS, J.P., ROSE, MALONE JR., STEIN and McCARTHY, JJ.
ROSE, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schuyler County (Argetsinger, J.), rendered December 4, 2008, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of sexual abuse in the first degree and course of criminal conduct against a child in the first degree.
In full satisfaction of a 17-count indictment, defendant entered an Alford plea of guilty to the crimes of sexual abuse in the first degree and course of criminal conduct against a child in the first degree. During the lengthy and thorough plea colloquy, defendant also agreed to waive his right to appeal. Then, after a written waiver was read to him and he was given the opportunity to consult with his attorneys, defendant indicated that he had no questions about his waiver. Approximately two months later, defendant retained new counsel and moved to withdraw his plea on the ground that he had not knowingly and intelligently entered his guilty plea because he had binged on methamphetamines for 10 days and then slept for two days in jail before appearing in court to enter his plea. Following a hearing at which defendant presented only his own testimony, County Court denied the motion. At sentencing, defendant refused to sign the written appeal waiver. Nevertheless, the court sentenced him as a second felony offender to the promised terms of imprisonment. Defendant now appeals.
We cannot agree that defendant's failure to sign the written waiver made his prior oral waiver of the right to appeal ineffective. County Court had fully explained the appeal rights being
waived, read the proposed written waiver to defendant and provided him with an opportunity to confer with counsel, and he agreed to waive his right to appeal in return for the People's agreement to the plea bargain ( see People v. Hayes, 71 A.D.3d 1187, 1188, 896 N.Y.S.2d 225 [2010]; People v. Morales, 68 A.D.3d 1356, 1357, 890 N.Y.S.2d 733 [2009], lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 803, 899 N.Y.S.2d 138, 925 N.E.2d 942 [2010] ). Accordingly, we find that his oral waiver was valid and it was not conditioned in any way upon his later...To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Sturdevant
-
People v. Shurock
...of appeal presented to him at sentencing did not render his prior oral waiver [83 A.D.3d 1343] ineffective ( see People v. Mattison, 74 A.D.3d 1495, 1495–1496, 902 N.Y.S.2d 228 [2010], lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 922, 913 N.Y.S.2d 649, 939 N.E.2d 815 [2010] ).1 Turning to the merits, although defe......
-
People v. Ruple
...the imposition of a "drastic" sanction such as preclusion or dismissal of the charge ( id. at 521, 478 N.Y.S.2d 834, 467 N.E.2d 498; see 902 N.Y.S.2d 228People v. Reyes, 27 A.D.3d 584, 584, 810 N.Y.S.2d 371 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 761, 819 N.Y.S.2d 887, 853 N.E.2d 258 [2006]; People v. ......
-
People v. Handly
...1034, 1035, 916 N.Y.S.2d 293 [2011], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 899, 926 N.Y.S.2d 35, 949 N.E.2d 983 [2011] ; People v. Mattison, 74 A.D.3d 1495, 1495–1496, 902 N.Y.S.2d 228 [2010], lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 922, 913 N.Y.S.2d 649, 939 N.E.2d 815 [2010] ). The record reflects that, during the allocutio......