People v. Muriel
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Writing for the Court | SPAIN |
| Citation | 75 A.D.3d 908,905 N.Y.S.2d 363 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edgar A. MURIEL, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 22 July 2010 |
75 A.D.3d 908
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Edgar A. MURIEL, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
July 22, 2010.
G. Scott Walling, Queensbury, for appellant.
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City (Jodi A. Danzig of counsel), for respondent.
Before: SPAIN, J.P., LAHTINEN, STEIN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.
SPAIN, J.P.
Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, J.), rendered July 10, 2007, which resentenced defendant upon his conviction of the crimes of conspiracy in the second degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and (2) by permission, from an order of said court, entered December 4, 2009, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence, without a hearing.
Defendant, facing charges for 23 crimes, pleaded guilty to conspiracy in the second degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree in accordance with a detailed, written plea agreement. Pursuant to that agreement, if defendant cooperated with the People in their prosecution of his codefendants, the conspiracy conviction would stand but defendant would be permitted to withdraw the plea to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and enter a plea of guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree. In connection with the replea, the agreement provided that the range of defendant's sentence would be a minimum possible sentence of 3 years to life and a maximum possible sentence of 8 1/3 years to life, to be followed by a period of postrelease supervision. No specific sentence was promised on either count. Defendant also executed a written waiver of his right to appeal.
As contemplated, defendant cooperated with the People, withdrew his plea to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and eventually replaced it with a plea of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree. He was sentenced on the conspiracy conviction to a prison term of 4 to 12 years and on the criminal sale conviction-upon application of the Drug Law Reform Act of 2005-to a prison term of seven years, with five years of postrelease supervision. The sentences were set to run concurrently.
Defendant subsequently moved pursuant to CPL 440.20 to have his sentence set aside, arguing that he did not receive the full benefit of his plea bargain because the parties had assumed that his maximum prison exposure would stem from the criminal sale conviction, rather than the conspiracy conviction. County Court denied defendant's motion without a hearing. Defendant-raising only challenges to his sentence on the conspiracy conviction-now appeals from his judgment of conviction and from the order denying his CPL 440.20 motion.
Initially, although defendant waived his right to appeal, it is not clear that his waiver precludes a challenge to the sentence imposed on the conspiracy conviction. Although the written plea agreement executed by defendant clearly contemplates the
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lindsey
...149 A.D.3d 1264, 1267, 52 N.Y.S.3d 523 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1092, 63 N.Y.S.3d 9, 85 N.E.3d 104 [2017] ; People v. Lindsey, 75 A.D.3d at 908, 906 N.Y.S.2d 161 ). Defendant further asserts that trial counsel provided him with ineffective assistance. To prevail on a claim of ineffective......
-
People v. Lindsey
...to respond to the People's application, defendant failed to present any relevant argument on the issues of admissibility or prejudice75 A.D.3d 908regarding the bad acts that the People sought to admit, instead choosing to revisit an unrelated issue that had been previously addressed and rul......
-
People v. Tyrell
...48 A.D.3d at 968, 852 N.Y.S.2d 429) but, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the error was harmless ( see People v. Lindsey, 75 A.D.3d at 908, 906 N.Y.S.2d 161). Finally, we find no error or abuse of discretion in County Court's discharge of juror No. 5, after a thorough inquiry......
-
People v. Martin
...we see no reason—given his role in this conspiracy and his prior criminal record—to further modify this sentence ( see People v. Muriel, 75 A.D.3d 908, 910, 905 N.Y.S.2d 363 [2010], lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 922, 913 N.Y.S.2d 649, 939 N.E.2d 815 [2010] ). ORDERED that the judgment is modified, o......