People v. Pittman, 109373

• Decision Date: 15 November 2018
• Docket Number: 109373
• Citation: 86 N.Y.S.3d 347,166 A.D.3d 1243
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Onte PITTMAN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

166 A.D.3d 1243

86 N.Y.S.3d 347

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Onte PITTMAN, Appellant.

109373

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

Calendar Date: October 10, 2018

Decided and Entered: November 15, 2018

Aaron A. Louridas, Delmar, for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Devine, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Lynch, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Sira, J.), rendered March 27, 2017, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of rape in the third degree.

Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted pursuant to a superior court information charging him with the reduced charge of rape in the third degree. Consistent with the terms of the plea agreement, which required him to waive his right to appeal, defendant pleaded guilty to the charged crime with the understanding that he would be sentenced to six months in jail and placed on probation for a period of 10 years. After the matter was adjourned for sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw his plea; the People opposed this request. County Court denied defendant's motion and thereafter imposed the agreed-upon sentence. Defendant now appeals.

Initially, we agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. County Court neither explained the separate and distinct nature of the waiver nor made any effort to ascertain whether defendant understood its implications and consequences (see People v. Thompson, 157 A.D.3d 1141, 1141, 69 N.Y.S.3d 744 [2018] ; People v. Farrell, 156 A.D.3d 1062, 1062, 65 N.Y.S.3d 465 [2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1115, 77 N.Y.S.3d 340, 101 N.E.3d 981 [2018] ; People v. Dumas, 155 A.D.3d 1256, 1256, 63 N.Y.S.3d 906 [2017] ). Similarly, although defendant signed a written waiver in open court, County Court "failed to ascertain whether defendant had read the waiver, understood its contents and/or had discussed the ramifications thereof with counsel" ( People v. Mallard, 163 A.D.3d 1350, 1351, 82 N.Y.S.3d 653 [2018] ; see People v. McClain, 161 A.D.3d 1457, 1458, 77 N.Y.S.3d 752 [2018] ; People v. Brewster, 161 A.D.3d 1309, 1310, 77 N.Y.S.3d 205 [2018] ). Given the invalid waiver, "defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence is not precluded" ( People v. Suddard, 164 A.D.3d 950, 951, 77 N.Y.S.3d 910 [2018] ) but, upon our review of the record, we find no extraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the agreed-upon sentence in the interest of justice (see generally People v. Treceno, 160 A.D.3d 1216, 1216, 71 N.Y.S.3d 915 [2018] ).

As for defendant's motion to withdraw his plea, although defendant now argues that he was pressured by the attorney initially assigned to represent him to accept the People's offer, was innocent of the charged crime and received the ineffective assistance of counsel,¹ the sole ground advanced in defendant's motion papers was the duress/coercion he felt in response to his arrest being reported on a "hate blog," his distrust of assigned counsel and his belief that there was a conspiracy against him. Defendant's claim of coercion is belied by his statements during the plea colloquy, wherein he assured County Court that he had been afforded sufficient time to confer with his family and counsel and was pleading guilty of his own free will (see People v. Taylor, 135 A.D.3d 1237, 1237, 23 N.Y.S.3d 590 [2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1075, 38 N.Y.S.3d 846, 60 N.E.3d 1212 [2016] ; People v. Shurock, 83 A.D.3d 1342, 1344, 920 N.Y.S.2d 862 [2011] ), and his remaining arguments – actual innocence and the ineffective assistance of counsel – are not preserved for our review as they were not advanced in his motion to withdraw his plea (see People v. Howe, 164 A.D.3d 951, 952, 81 N.Y.S.3d 675 [2018] ; People v. Griffin, 134 A.D.3d 1228, 1230, 20 N.Y.S.3d 738 [2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1132, 39 N.Y.S.3d 114, 61 N.E.3d 513 [2016] ; People v. Scales, 118 A.D.3d 1500, 1500–1501, 987 N.Y.S.2d 541 [2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 1067, 994 N.Y.S.2d 326, 18 N.E.3d 1147 [2014] ; People v. Delarosa, 104 A.D.3d 956, 956, 960 N.Y.S.2d 915 [2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 1003, 971 N.Y.S.2d 255, 993 N.E.2d 1277 [2013] ; People v. Wilson, 101 A.D.3d 1248, 1249, 956 N.Y.S.2d 260 [2012] ). As defendant did not make any statements during his allocution that cast doubt upon his guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was not triggered (see People v. Burks, 163 A.D.3d 1286, 1287, 80 N.Y.S.3d 733 [2018] ; People v. Haenelt, 161 A.D.3d 1489, 1490, 77 N.Y.S.3d 770 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1148, 83 N.Y.S.3d 430, 108 N.E.3d 504 [2018] ).

Were we to address these arguments, we would find them to be lacking in merit. Defendant's postplea (and entirely unsupported) protestations of innocence, as initially articulated during his presentence investigation interview and reiterated at the time of sentencing, are inconsistent with his sworn statements during the plea allocution and would not warrant vacatur of his plea (see People v. Hollenbeck, 152 A.D.3d 974, 976, 60 N.Y.S.3d 521 [2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1061, 71 N.Y.S.3d 11, 94 N.E.3d 493 [2017] ; People v. Chaires, 150 A.D.3d 1326, 1327, 53 N.Y.S.3d 722 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1124, 64 N.Y.S.3d 674, 86 N.E.3d 566 [2017] ; People v. Cadet, 144 A.D.3d 1335, 1336, 41 N.Y.S.3d 434 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1143, 52 N.Y.S.3d 295, 74 N.E.3d 680 [2017], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 112, 199 L.Ed.2d 70 [2017] ; People v. Crispell, 136 A.D.3d 1121, 1122, 24 N.Y.S.3d 454 [2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1149, 39 N.Y.S.3d 384, 62 N.E.3d 124 [2016] ; People v. Gibson, 95 A.D.3d 1033, 1033–1034, 944 N.Y.S.2d 237 [2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 996, 951 N.Y.S.2d 473, 975 N.E.2d 919 [2012] ). To the extent that defendant contends that assigned counsel failed to properly investigate his case in the first instance, this argument implicates matters outside of the record and is better addressed in a CPL article 440 motion (see People v. Franklin, 146 A.D.3d 1082, 1084, 45 N.Y.S.3d 635 [2017], lvs denied 29 N.Y.3d 946, 948, 54 N.Y.S.3d 377, 379, 76 N.E.3d 1080, 1082 [2017]; People v. Lewis, 143 A.D.3d 1183, 1185, 40 N.Y.S.3d 605 [2016] ). As for the Conflict Defender's...