People v. Moissett

• Decision Date: 16 October 1990
• Citation: 76 N.Y.2d 909,563 N.Y.S.2d 43,564 N.E.2d 653
• Parties: , 564 N.E.2d 653 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John M. MOISSETT, Jr., Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 43

563 N.Y.S.2d 43

76 N.Y.2d 909, 564 N.E.2d 653

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John M. MOISSETT, Jr., Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 16, 1990.

[76 N.Y.2d 910] [564 N.E.2d 654] John Ferrara, Massapequa, and Carl Silverstein, Monticello, for appellant.

Stephen F. Lungen, Dist. Atty. (Bonnie M. Mitzner, Monticello, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 154 A.D.2d 786, 546 N.Y.S.2d 463, should be affirmed.

We conclude that there is support in the record for the Appellate Division's determination that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal and that a waiver of the right to appeal was an integral part of the negotiated plea. Significantly, defendant does not contend that the plea itself was not voluntary, knowing and intelligent. Rather, relying on People v. Seaberg 74 N.Y.2d 1, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022, he argues that the waiver of the right to appeal was infirm because the court failed to conduct the type of inquiry discussed in Seaberg and demonstrated its own confusion, when at sentencing, the court advised defendant of his right to appeal.

We have consistently held that trial courts are not required to engage in any particular litany during an allocution in order to obtain a valid guilty plea in which defendant waives a plethora of rights (see, People v. Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, 287 N.Y.S.2d 659, 234 N.E.2d 687, cert. denied sub nom. Robinson v. New York, 393 U.S. 1067, 89 S.Ct. 721, 21 L.Ed.2d 709; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170). We have required, however, that for a waiver to be enforceable, it must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent (see, People v. Harris, supra; People v. Rodriguez, 50 N.Y.2d 553, 429 N.Y.S.2d 631, 407 N.E.2d 475; People v. Adams, 38 N.Y.2d 605, 381 N.Y.S.2d 847, 345 N.E.2d 318; People v. White, 32 N.Y.2d 393, 345 N.Y.S.2d 513, 298 N.E.2d 659; People v. Nixon, supra), and we have specifically approved waivers of the right to appeal, finding that public interest concerns underlying plea bargains generally are served by enforcing such waivers ( see, People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022, supra).

In Seaberg, we suggested more detailed guidelines for trial courts to follow in assuring that waivers are voluntary, knowing and intelligent (id., at 11, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022) and observed that "the terms and conditions of the agreement and the defendant's understanding of them [should] be placed upon the record to facilitate appellate review" (id.).

The plea and waiver here was concluded prior to our decision in Seaberg and although the record does not reveal an explicit waiver by defendant of his right to appeal, there is ample evidence in the record supporting the Appellate Division's determination that defendant understood that he was waiving that right as part of the plea bargain and that his waiver was voluntary, knowing and intelligent. The crime of which defendant was accused was particularly tragic and defendant was in grave risk of a murder conviction and life sentence. His attorney explained at great length, on the record, that he had reviewed and evaluated the strength of the People's evidence and discussed the case at length with the defendant and defendant's family. Defense counsel then informed the court that a determination was...