People v. McKenzie

• Decision Date: 29 August 2012
• Citation: 98 A.D.3d 749,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06086,950 N.Y.S.2d 177
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Michael A. McKENZIE, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

98 A.D.3d 749

950 N.Y.S.2d 177

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06086

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Michael A. McKENZIE, appellant.

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

Aug. 29, 2012.

Mark Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Karla Lato of counsel), for respondent.

DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., ARIEL E. BELEN, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), rendered January 26, 2011, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree under Indictment No. 1338/09, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to a determinate term of 25 years imprisonment plus a 5–year period of postrelease supervision, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered January 26, 2011, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing sentence upon his previous conviction of robbery in the second degree under Indictment No. 8004/09.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed from a determinate term of imprisonment of 25 years plus a 5–year period of postrelease supervision to a determinate term of imprisonment of 20 years plus a 5–year period of postrelease supervision; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to appeal ( see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 265, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645;People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 283, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108;cf. People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222;People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the validity of his plea of guilty since he failed to move to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160;People v. McCallum, 84 A.D.3d 1117, 926 N.Y.S.2d 531;People v. Ingram, 80 A.D.3d 713, 914 N.Y.S.2d 316;People v. Rojas, 74 A.D.3d 1369, 903 N.Y.S.2d 258;People v. Colston, 68 A.D.3d 1130, 892 N.Y.S.2d 145). Moreover, the rare exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;People v. Scivolette, 80 A.D.3d 630, 631, 914 N.Y.S.2d 662). In any event, any defect in the factual allocution did not render the plea unknowing, involuntary, improvident, or baseless ( see People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797;People v. Johnson, 73 A.D.3d 951, 899 N.Y.S.2d 875;People v. Guerrero, 307 A.D.2d 935, 936, 762 N.Y.S.2d 888;People v. Winbush, 199 A.D.2d 447, 448, 605 N.Y.S.2d 385). Moreover, because the defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser crime than the crimes charged in the indictment and since the allocution establishes that the defendant understood the charges against him, a factual basis for the plea was unnecessary ( see People v. Moore, 71 N.Y.2d 1002, 1006, 530 N.Y.S.2d 94, 525 N.E.2d 740;People v. Clairborne, 29 N.Y.2d 950, 329 N.Y.S.2d 580, 280 N.E.2d 366;People v. Mayo, 77 A.D.3d 683, 908 N.Y.S.2d 353;People v. Billings, 60 A.D.3d 961, 874 N.Y.S.2d 826;People v. Richardson, 50 A.D.3d 704, ...