People v. Putman
| Decision Date | 07 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | 108091 |
| Citation | 93 N.Y.S.3d 461,169 A.D.3d 1114 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael R. PUTMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
169 A.D.3d 1114
93 N.Y.S.3d 461
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Michael R. PUTMAN, Appellant.
108091
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Calendar Date: January 7, 2019
Decided and Entered: February 7, 2019
John J. Raspante, Utica, for appellant.
William G. Gabor, District Attorney, Wampsville (Elizabeth S. Healy of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Aarons, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Egan Jr., J.P.
Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree in full satisfaction of an 11–count indictment and waived the right to appeal. He was thereafter sentenced, as a second felony offender, to the agreed-upon term of imprisonment of nine years, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision, with the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence defendant was already serving. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. Defendant contends that both the waiver of the right to appeal and his guilty plea were not entered into knowingly,
intelligently and voluntarily. Initially, whether defendant's appeal waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary is of no consequence because defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea survives a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Simon, 166 A.D.3d 1075, 1076, 86 N.Y.S.3d 333 [2018] ; People v. Howe, 150 A.D.3d 1321, 1322–1323, 54 N.Y.S.3d 190 [2017] ). Although defendant's claim that his plea was involuntary because it was coerced survives an appeal waiver, the claim has not been preserved for our review as the record does not reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see CPL 220.60[3] ;
People v. Robinson, 161 A.D.3d 1218, 1219, 72 N.Y.S.3d 850 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1152, 83 N.Y.S.3d 434, 108 N.E.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Huntley, 109718
...ample time to do so prior to sentencing (see People v. Favreau, 174 A.D.3d 1226, 1227, 105 N.Y.S.3d 721 [2019] ; People v. Putman, 169 A.D.3d 1114, 1115, 93 N.Y.S.3d 461 [2019] ), and the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was not triggered here (see People v. Pastor, 28 N.Y.3......
-
Mercer v. Harper
... ... less than forthcoming about his involvement in the instant ... offense.” SR 56-57. The People called Probation Officer ... Kathryn Brown (“Probation Officer”) as a witness ... Id. The Probation Officer stated, under oath, ... ...
-
People v. Warren
...defendant failed to preserve this contention because he did not make an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Putman, 169 A.D.3d 1114, 1115, 93 N.Y.S.3d 461 [2019] ; People v. Lamb, 162 A.D.3d 1395, 1396, 80 N.Y.S.3d 520 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1112, 91 N.Y.S.3d 364, 115 N.E.......
- People v. Mercer, 107999