People v. Rushlow

• Decision Date: 31 March 2016
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Steven F. RUSHLOW Jr., Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

137 A.D.3d 1482

28 N.Y.S.3d 476

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Steven F. RUSHLOW Jr., Appellant.

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

March 31, 2016.

Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (George J. Hoffman Jr. of counsel), for appellant.

Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Ramy Louis of counsel), for respondent.

Before: McCARTHY, J.P., EGAN JR., ROSE, DEVINE and CLARK, JJ.

CLARK

, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered December 16, 2013, convicting defendant upon his pleas of guilty of the crimes of aggravated driving while intoxicated and driving while intoxicated.

In June 2013, in satisfaction of a three-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated driving while intoxicated and waived his right to appeal, both orally and in writing. At the time of his guilty plea, he was participating in a substance abuse treatment program and was expected to continue to do so while the criminal matter was pending. He was released to probation supervision pending sentencing, which was set for September 2013. At that time, he was to be sentenced under the terms of the plea agreement to six months in jail and five years of probation.

Prior to sentencing, however, defendant violated the conditions of his probation release multiple times and he was arrested for driving while intoxicated. He waived indictment with respect to the new charge and agreed to be prosecuted by a superior court information. Plea proceedings ensued during which County Court advised defendant that, if he pleaded guilty to the new crime, he would be sentenced to a prison term of 1 ? to 4 years that would run consecutively to the 1 to 3–year prison term that the court was now going to impose on the aggravated driving while intoxicated conviction. Defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and waived his right to appeal, both orally and in writing. Thereafter, he was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of 1 to 3 years on the aggravated driving while intoxicated conviction and 1 ? to 4 years on the driving while intoxicated conviction. He now appeals.

Initially, we find that defendant's appeal waivers were valid inasmuch as "County Court adequately explained the nature of the rights that defendant was waiving, the appeal rights that he could not waive, and that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty" (People v. Lyman, 119 A.D.3d 968, 969, 988 N.Y.S.2d 717 [2014]

; see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256–257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ; People v. Perkins, 125 A.D.3d 1045, 1047, 3 N.Y.S.3d 440 [2015] ). Thus, he is precluded from challenging the respective sentences as harsh or excessive (see People v. Rubio, 133 A.D.3d 1041, 1042, 20 N.Y.S.3d 666 [2015] ; People v. Perkins, 125 A.D.3d at 1047, 3 N.Y.S.3d 440 ).

Defendant further argues that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence on the aggravated driving while intoxicated conviction because he was not advised of the potential consequences of his failure to comply with supervised release conditions or that his arrest prior to sentencing would subject him to an enhanced sentence. Although defendant's valid appeal waiver does not foreclose him from raising this claim, it has not been preserved for our review due to defendant's failure to either object to the enhanced sentence or make a motion to withdraw his plea (see People v. Bucknor, 116 A.D.3d 1233, 1234, 983 N.Y.S.2d 743 [2014]

; People v. Stanley, 100 A.D.3d 1152, 1152–1153, 954 N.Y.S.2d 234 [2012] ). Nevertheless, despite the lack of preservation, we shall exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to take corrective action.

"A sentencing court may not impose an enhanced sentence unless it has informed the defendant of specific conditions that the defendant must abide by or risk such enhancement, or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his or her plea before the enhanced sentence is imposed" (People v. Tole, 119 A.D.3d 982, 984, 989 N.Y.S.2d 185 [2014]

; see People v. Lewis, 98 A.D.3d 1186, 1186, 951 N.Y.S.2d 594 [2012] ; People v. Lindsey, 80 A.D.3d 1005, 1006, 914 N.Y.S.2d 782 [2011] ). Here, the plea...