People v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 24 May 2017
• Citation: 52 N.Y.S.3d 675 (Mem),150 A.D.3d 1156
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Antwan THOMPSON, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

150 A.D.3d 1156

52 N.Y.S.3d 675 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Antwan THOMPSON, appellant.

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

May 24, 2017.

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Natalie Rea of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Morgan Dennehy, Michael L. Brenner, and Thomas M. Ross of counsel; Gregory Musso on the brief), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Donnelly, J.), rendered June 24, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the third degree (four counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 341–342, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256–257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ).

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in determining that it did not have the authority at the time of sentencing to defer payment of the mandatory surcharge imposed pursuant to CPL 60.35 survives his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Quishana M., 50 A.D.3d 1513, 856 N.Y.S.2d 387 ). However, his contention is without merit (see People v. Jones, 26 N.Y.3d 730, 27 N.Y.S.3d 431, 47 N.E.3d 710 ).

The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that counsel's alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v. Weston , 145 A.D.3d 746, 747, 43 N.Y.S.3d 413 ). To the extent that the defendant contends that counsel's alleged ineffectiveness affected the voluntariness of his plea, his contention is based, in part, on matter on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and thus constitutes a "mixed claim" of ineffective assistance (People v. Maxwell , 89 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ). In this case, it is not evident from the matter appearing on the record that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Leverich , 139 A.D.3d 756, 29 N.Y.S.3d 187 ). Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety (see People v. Leverich , 139 A.D.3d at 757, 29 N.Y.S.3d 187 ; People v. Maxwell , 89 A.D.3d at 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ).

The defendant contends in his pro se supplemental brief that his arraignment was unduly delayed. While this contention survives his plea of guilty and his waiver of the right to appeal, it is not preserved for appellate review (see People v. Thomas , 148 A.D.3d 734, 47 N.Y.S.3d 715 ; People v. Archie, 116 A.D.3d 1165, 983 N.Y.S.2d 358 ), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant's contention in his pro se supplemental brief that the sentence imposed was illegal survives his plea of guilty and his waiver of the right to appeal (see People...