People v. Sparbanie
| Citation | 158 A.D.3d 942,71 N.Y.S.3d 669 |
| Decision Date | 15 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | 107318,108041 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Walter M. SPARBANIE Sr., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
158 A.D.3d 942
71 N.Y.S.3d 669
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Walter M. SPARBANIE Sr., Appellant.
107318
108041
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Calendar Date: January 9, 2018
Decided and Entered: February 15, 2018
William T. Morrison, Albany, for appellant.
Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Sophie J. Marmor of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Clark, Mulvey, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Aarons, J.
Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered November 24, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the second degree, and (2) by permission, from an order of said court, entered June 23, 2015, which denied defendant's motions pursuant to CPL 440.10 and 440.20 to vacate the judgment of conviction and to set aside the sentence, without a hearing.
In May 2014, defendant was indicted and charged with one count of attempted assault in the first degree and one count of assault in the second degree. The charges stemmed from an incident wherein defendant stabbed his then-girlfriend in the chest and thigh with a kitchen knife. After apparently rejecting an initial plea offer, defendant proceeded to trial on October 27, 2014. Following jury selection, County Court was informed that two Child Protective Services caseworkers recently had spoken with defendant at the local jail regarding a pending Family Court matter and, during the course of that conversation, defendant allegedly made certain inculpatory statements relative to the criminal charges lodged against him. County Court, deeming the timing of the alleged statements to be "very troubling," effectively concluded that such statements were inadmissible and warned the People that, if they elected to call the caseworkers to testify, the court would declare a mistrial and dismiss the indictment. As a result of the court's ruling, no Huntley hearing was held.
Defense counsel thereafter advised County Court that an open plea agreement had been reached whereby defendant would plead guilty to one count of assault in the second degree—with sentencing left to the discretion of County Court. After being apprised of the rights that he would be forfeiting by forgoing a jury trial, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of assault in the second degree and the matter was adjourned for sentencing. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to a prison term of six years followed by five years of postrelease supervision (subsequently corrected to three years of postrelease supervision). Defendant then moved pro se to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10 and to set aside the sentence pursuant to CPL 440.20. County Court denied the motions without a hearing, finding, among other things, that the corrected sentence imposed was authorized, lawful and valid and that defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea could be raised upon his direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and, hence, was not properly the subject of a CPL 440.10 motion. Defendant now appeals from the judgment of conviction and, by permission, from the order denying his CPL article 440 motions.
We affirm. Defendant initially contends that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Specifically, defendant argues that County Court's suppression ruling regarding the purportedly inculpatory statements made to the caseworkers at the local jail, although undeniably favorable to defendant, as well as the court's corresponding failure to hold a Huntley
hearing, were erroneous. Hence, defendant's argument continues, when the open plea agreement subsequently was proposed, he felt compelled to accept it immediately before County Court could reverse itself and allow the subject statements to be admitted into evidence at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Palin, 108580
...from 2008, without specifying the nature of those felonies or the underlying charges or crimes. By not allowing any inquiry into the 158 A.D.3d 942underlying facts or crimes, the court appropriately balanced the probative value of these two prior convictions against the risk of prejudice to......
-
People v. Blanford
...meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento , 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998] ; People v. Sparbanie . 158 A.D.3d 942, 944–945, 71 N.Y.S.3d 669 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1087, 79 N.Y.S.3d 109, 103 N.E.3d 1256 [2018] ). Moreover, he has not shown that coun......
-
People v. Palmer
...defendants who are offered a plea deal, and it does not undermine the voluntariness of defendant's guilty plea" ( People v. Sparbanie , 158 A.D.3d 942, 944, 71 N.Y.S.3d 669 [2018] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1087, 79 N.Y.S.3d 109, 103 N.E.......
-
People v. Mills
...N.Y.S.3d 747 ). There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was pressured into accepting the plea (see People v. Sparbanie, 158 A.D.3d 942, 944, 71 N.Y.S.3d 669 ; People v. Palmer, 174 A.D.3d 1118, 104 N.Y.S.3d 793 ).The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was involun......