People v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 30 April 2010
• Citation: 899 N.Y.S.2d 761,72 A.D.3d 1483
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Steven D. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

899 N.Y.S.2d 761

72 A.D.3d 1483

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Steven D. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

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

April 30, 2010.

James L. Dowsey, III, West Valley, for Defendant-Appellant.

Steven D. Thomas, Defendant-Appellant Pro Se.

Edward M. Sharkey, District Attorney, Little Valley (Kelly M. Balcom of Counsel), For Respondent.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, PINE, AND GORSKI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51[b][iv] ). Defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently entered because County Court failed to recite the name of the person whom defendant called in violation of an order of protection and failed to specify the date of the telephone call. That contention is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, which is encompassed by defendant'svalid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Bailey, 49 A.D.3d 1258, 852 N.Y.S.2d 892, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 932, 862 N.Y.S.2d 338, 892 N.E.2d 404). Defendant also failed to preserve that challenge for our review by failing to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5), and this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement ( see id. at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5). Defendant further contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea colloquy. To the extent that defendant'scontention survives the plea and the waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Santos, 37 A.D.3d 1141, 827 N.Y.S.2d 917, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 950, 836 N.Y.S.2d 560, 868 N.E.2d 243), we conclude that it is lacking in merit. The record establishes that "[d]efendant received 'an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of [defense] counsel' " ( People v. Balanean, 55 A.D.3d 1353, 1353, 864 N.Y.S.2d 812, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 895, 873 N.Y.S.2d 271, 901 N.E.2d 765, quoting People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265).

Defendant further contends that he was confused during the plea colloquy because "it was happening so fast" and thus that the court erred in denying his motion to withdraw the plea, which we note was not directed at a specific ground. We reject that contention inasmuch as the record establishes that defendant responded in the affirmative when the court asked him whether he understood the nature of the proceedings and the plea agreement, and had discussed the matter with his attorney ( see People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482, 485, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802; People v. Beaty, 303 A.D.2d 965, 755 N.Y.S.2d 911, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 559, 763 N.Y.S.2d 816, 795 N.E.2d 42; ...