People v. Schultz

• Decision Date: 02 February 2018
• Docket Number: 28,KA 16–01083
• Citation: 158 A.D.3d 1058,70 N.Y.S.3d 318
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Krista SCHULTZ, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

158 A.D.3d 1058
70 N.Y.S.3d 318

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Krista SCHULTZ, Defendant–Appellant.

28
KA 16–01083

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

Entered: February 2, 2018

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ALAN WILLIAMS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

JOHN J. FLYNN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. HILLERY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, DEJOSEPH, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Memorandum:

158 A.D.3d 1058

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of grand larceny in the third degree ( Penal Law § 155.35 [1] ). Defendant had a part-time position as the chief financial officer of a charter school in Buffalo, where she was responsible for managing the school's payroll. Defendant had an annual salary of about $42,000, but she caused the school to pay her $117,000 during her first seven months of employment. Although defendant claimed that she had actually worked 13 hours per day for more than 100 consecutive days, she nevertheless took $27,567 over and above the amount to which she would have been entitled had she actually worked those additional hours. Preliminarily, we note that, as the People correctly concede, defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. Although defendant executed a written waiver," ‘there was no colloquy between [Supreme] Court and defendant regarding the waiver of the right to appeal to ensure that it was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered’ " ( People v. McCoy, 107 A.D.3d 1454, 1454, 967 N.Y.S.2d 309 [4th Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 957, 977 N.Y.S.2d 188, 999 N.E.2d 553 [2013] ).

We reject defendant's contention that the court abused its discretion in denying her motion to withdraw her guilty plea on the grounds that it was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, and the plea allocution was factually insufficient. "[P]ermission to withdraw a guilty plea rests solely within the court's discretion ..., and refusal to permit withdrawal does not constitute an abuse of that discretion unless there is some evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in inducing the plea" ( People v. Dale, 142 A.D.3d 1287, 1289, 38 N.Y.S.3d 333 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1144, 52 N.Y.S.3d...