People v. Meddaugh

• Decision Date: 25 May 2017
• Citation: 150 A.D.3d 1545,55 N.Y.S.3d 777
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Harley MEDDAUGH, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

150 A.D.3d 1545
55 N.Y.S.3d 777

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Harley MEDDAUGH, Appellant.

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

May 25, 2017.

55 N.Y.S.3d 778

Todd G. Monahan, Schenectady, for appellant.

Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Timothy G. Blatchley of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GARRY, J.P., EGAN JR., LYNCH, CLARK and AARONS, JJ.

AARONS, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Ryan, J.), rendered April 25, 2014, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In December 2013, while on parole release, defendant was arrested and charged in an 11–count indictment with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts) and conspiracy in the fourth degree (three counts). In March 2014, defendant, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement that required her to, among other things, execute a waiver of appeal, pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Consistent with the terms of the plea agreement, County Court sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of seven years, to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.¹

We affirm. Initially, while the negotiated plea agreement required defendant to execute a waiver of appeal, our review of the record reveals that County Court failed to explain the significance of an appeal waiver or convey that it is "separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a guilty plea" (People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ; see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 340–341, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 [2015] ; People v. Bates, 146 A.D.3d 1075, 1075, 45 N.Y.S.3d 269 [2017] ; People v. Lloyd, 142 A.D.3d 1250, 1250, 37 N.Y.S.3d 917 [2016], lv. denied

55 N.Y.S.3d 779

28 N.Y.3d 1073, 47 N.Y.S.3d 232, 69 N.E.3d 1028 [2016] ). Although defendant acknowledged that she understood that the plea agreement required her to execute a waiver of appeal whereby she would waive certain appellate rights, the record neither contains a written waiver of appeal signed by defendant nor reflects that any inquiry was made as to whether she had read such a waiver and understood it (see People v. Lemon, 137 A.D.3d 1422, 1423, 27 N.Y.S.3d 726 [2016], lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 1135, 39 N.Y.S.3d 116, 61 N.E.3d 515 [2016] ; People v. Rabideau, 130 A.D.3d 1094, 1095, 12 N.Y.S.3d 386 [2015] ). Under these circumstances, we conclude that the waiver of appeal was invalid and does not preclude defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or her challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed.

Defendant argues that her guilty plea was involuntary because it was induced by unfulfilled promises regarding the length of her sentence and that she would be admitted into a correctional facility wherein she could have given birth to her child and purportedly remained with that child for 18 months thereafter. While "[a] guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise either must be vacated or the promise honored" (People v. Collier, 22 N.Y.3d 429, 433, 982 N.Y.S.2d 34, 5 N.E.3d 5 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2730, 189 L.Ed.2d 770 [2014] ; see People v. Selikoff, 35 N.Y.2d 227, 241, 360 N.Y.S.2d 623, 318 N.E.2d 784 [1974], cert. denied 419 U.S. 1122, 95 S.Ct. 806, 42 L.Ed.2d 822 [1975] ; People v. Roberts, 293 A.D.2d 916, 917, 742 N.Y.S.2d 404 [2002] ), the record does not establish any of defendant's allegations. Defendant indicated that she understood the terms of the plea agreement-which did not specify the correctional facility to which she would be assigned or indicate whether she would receive additional confinement for having violated parole-and requested that County Court adhere to its terms. Defendant also expressed that, among other things, she had been given enough time to discuss her plea with her counsel and her family members, that she was voluntarily giving up her trial-related rights and that she understood that she would be allowed to withdraw her plea if County Court decided to deviate from the proposed sentence after reviewing the presentence report. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the minutes of the plea colloquy...