People v. Tole

• Decision Date: 03 July 2014
• Citation: 119 A.D.3d 982,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04980,989 N.Y.S.2d 185
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kuidon TOLE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

119 A.D.3d 982

989 N.Y.S.2d 185

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04980

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Kuidon TOLE, Appellant.

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

July 3, 2014.

John Ferrara, Monticello, for appellant.

James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Meagan K. Galligan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, GARRY, ROSE and DEVINE, JJ.

DEVINE, J.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), rendered January 8, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree, and (2) from a judgment of said court, rendered January 8, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Defendant was originally charged in an indictment with promoting prison contraband in the first degree. Although County Court dismissed the indictment on the basis that defendant had not received proper grand jury notice, this Court reversed that order and ordered that the indictment be reinstated (94 A.D.3d 1334, 1334–1335, 942 N.Y.S.2d 295 [2012],lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 968, 950 N.Y.S.2d 120, 973 N.E.2d 218 [2012] ). Following reinstatement of the indictment, but prior to its resolution, police officers responding to a domestic dispute at defendant's apartment found over 500 milligrams of cocaine. Defendant ultimately waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted on a charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree by superior court information.

Defendant then pleaded guilty to attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree in satisfaction of the indictment and superior court information and waived his right to appeal both convictions. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant was to be sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 1 1/2 to 3 years for the prison contraband charge and 1 1/2 years for the controlled substance charge, to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision. He was released prior to sentencing and, while on release, he was arrested in Orange County. County Court thereafter found defendant in violation of a condition of his release and sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to an enhanced prison term of 2 to 4 years on the prison contraband conviction and four years in prison on the criminal possession of a controlled substance conviction, to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision, with the sentences to run consecutively. Defendant now appeals.

Initially, although County Court should have more thoroughly distinguished the right to appeal from the rights forfeited upon pleading guilty, the detailed written waivers of the right to appeal executed by defendant and his counsel acknowledged defendant's separate and distinct right to appeal, confirmed that he had discussed the waivers and their consequences with counsel and affirmed that he was voluntarily waiving the right. County Court confirmed that defendant understood the waivers and that he did not need any further time to discuss them with counsel. Under these circumstances, the record reflects that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal his convictions and sentences was knowing, intelligent and voluntary ( see People v. Henion, 110 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 973 N.Y.S.2d 857 [2013],lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 1088, 981 N.Y.S.2d 674, 4 N.E.3d 976 [2014];People v. McCaskill, 76 A.D.3d 751, 752, 905 N.Y.S.2d 721 [2010];People v. Glynn, 73 A.D.3d 1290, 1290–1291, 900 N.Y.S.2d 513 [2010] ). In light of his valid appeal waiver, defendant's challenge to County Court's suppression ruling is precluded ( see People v. Morrison, 106 A.D.3d 1201, 1202, 964 N.Y.S.2d 761 [2013];People v. Stone, 105 A.D.3d 1094, 1094, 962 N.Y.S.2d 789 [2013] ).

Defendant's contention that his guilty plea to attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary—which survives his appeal waiver—is nonetheless unpreserved as the record does not reveal that he made an appropriate postallocution motion ( see People v. Smith, 112 A.D.3d 1232, 1232, 976 N.Y.S.2d 747 [2013],lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 1203, 986 N.Y.S.2d 423, 9 N.E.3d 918 [2014];People v. Hare, 110 A.D.3d 1117, 1117, 972 N.Y.S.2d 361 [2013] ). Further, while we agree that defendant's statements prior to the plea colloquy that the cell phone in question was not “dangerous contraband” reveal some equivocation as to an essential element of the crime to which he later pleaded quilty ( seePenal Law § 205.25[2]; People v. Pagan, 36 A.D.3d 1163, 1164–1165, 828 N.Y.S.2d 665 [2007] ), we are satisfied that, during the ensuing discussion with County Court, defendant was properly informed and understood that, if he went to trial, it would be up to the jury to determine whether or not the cell phone was dangerous contraband ( see People v. Green, 119 A.D.3d 23, ––––, 984 N.Y.S.2d 680, 682–683 [2014] ). Defendant did not raise the issue thereafter, including during the plea colloquy itself, and the record reflects that, following this discussion, defendant knowingly chose to accept a favorable plea deal rather than risk conviction following a trial. Accordingly, inasmuch as the record demonstrates that defendant's concerns were clarified and his plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988];People v. Goodell, 104 A.D.3d 1026, 1026, 960 N.Y.S.2d 744 [2013],lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 1138, 983 N.Y.S.2d 497, 6 N.E.3d 616 [2014];People v. Ferro, 101 A.D.3d 1243, 1244, 956 N.Y.S.2d 225 [2012],lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 1098, 965 N.Y.S.2d 794, 988 N.E.2d 532 [2013] ).

Finally, defendant argues that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence. We agree. Although this issue is not precluded by his appeal waiver, it is unpreserved inasmuch as he failed to object to the enhanced sentence or make an appropriate motion ( 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];People v. Donnelly, 80 A.D.3d 797, 798, 914 N.Y.S.2d 385 [2011];People v. McDermott, 68 A.D.3d 1453, 1454, 891 N.Y.S.2d 515 [2009] ). Despite this failure to preserve the issue, we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to take corrective action.

A sentencing court may not impose an enhanced sentence unless it has...