People v. Waldron
| Decision Date | 03 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | 110016 |
| Citation | 110 N.Y.S.3d 455,176 A.D.3d 1260 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Corey F. WALDRON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Richards, J.), rendered November 1, 2017, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and waived his right to appeal with the understanding that, as a second felony offender, he would be sentenced to an agreed-upon period of incarceration and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $4,100, representing the amount paid by the victims' homeowner's insurance policy. Prior to sentencing, the presentence investigation report set forth detailed information regarding the precise amount paid by the insurance company, which was $4,052.94, as well as the $500 deductible paid by the victims, bringing the total amount to $4,552.94. At sentencing, the People, relying on that detailed information, requested restitution in the amount of $4,552.94, contending, without objection, that it was in accordance with the plea agreement. County Court imposed the agreed-upon prison sentence and ordered restitution in the amount of $4,552.94. Defendant appeals.
Defendant contends that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced restitution without affording him the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the restitution imposed due to his failure to request a hearing or challenge the amount at sentencing (see People v. Horne, 97 N.Y.2d 404, 414 n 3, 740 N.Y.S.2d 675, 767 N.E.2d 132 [2002] ; People v. Dunn, 160 A.D.3d 1202, 1203, 75 N.Y.S.3d 650 [2018] ; People v. Nesbitt, 144 A.D.3d 1329, 1329–1330, 41 N.Y.S.3d 176 [2016] ; People v. Morehouse, 140 A.D.3d 1202, 1204, 33 N.Y.S.3d 491 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 934, 40 N.Y.S.3d 362, 63 N.E.3d 82 [2016] ). Nevertheless, "a sentencing court may not impose a more severe sentence than one bargained for without providing the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his or her plea" ( People v. Naumowicz, 76 A.D.3d 747, 750, 907 N.Y.S.2d 353 [2010] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; see People v. Mahar, 109 A.D.3d 1047, 1048–1049, 972 N.Y.S.2d 733 [2013] ). Because the restitution imposed exceeds the amount presented by the People to which defendant agreed at the time of the plea and he seeks, among other things, vacatur of the plea, we deem it appropriate to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to take corrective action (see e.g. People v. Nesbitt, 144 A.D.3d at 1329–1330, 41 N.Y.S.3d 176 ; People v. Morehouse, 140 A.D.3d at 1203, 33 N.Y.S.3d 491 ). Accordingly, we remit the matter for the purpose of allowing defendant to either accept the enhanced restitution amount or give defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea (see People v. Mahar, 109 A.D.3d at 1049, 972 N.Y.S.2d 733 ; People v. Naumowicz, 76 A.D.3d at 750, 907 N.Y.S.2d 353 ).
Egan Jr., J.P. (dissenting).
As the majority notes in its decision, defendant failed to preserve for review his contention that County Court erred when it imposed an enhanced restitution at sentencing without affording him an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. Unlike the majority, however, given this lack of preservation, we would decline to take corrective action in the interest of justice (see People v. Ortolaza , 120 A.D.3d 843, 844, 991 N.Y.S.2d 171 [2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 991, 10 N.Y.S.3d 534, 32 N.E.3d 971 [2015] ; People v. Empey, 73 A.D.3d 1387, 1389, 901 N.Y.S.2d 756 [2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 804, 908 N.Y.S.2d 164, 934 N.E.2d 898 [2010] ). Here, the People requested, and defendant agreed to pay, restitution in the amount of $4,100. Prior to sentencing, however, defendant was provided a copy of the presentence investigation report that reported that the victims were requesting additional restitution in the amount of $500, which represented the deductible component of their insurance policy. At sentencing, the People...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ward
...to the residence for the benefit of the police officers who actually conducted the search and recovered the physical evidence at issue. 110 N.Y.S.3d 455 There is no indication in the record that the police officers who effected the search and seizure of the physical evidence were acting as ......
-
Ward v. City of Middletown
... ... or otherwise require suppression of the physical evidence at ... issue.” People v. Ward, 110 N.Y.S.3d 451, 454 ... (2d Dep't 2019) [hereinafter, “ Ward ... I .”] The New York Court of Appeals denied pro ... ...
-
People v. Driscoll
...and contended, among other things, that there was no legitimate basis for the imposition of the enhanced sentence. Soon after, defense 176 A.D.3d 1260 counsel also moved to set aside defendant's sentence, asserting that the dismissal of the indictment based upon the March 2014 offenses cons......
-
People v. Gravell
...at least one issue of arguable merit pertaining to the propriety of the amount of restitution ordered (see People v. Waldron, 176 A.D.3d 1260, 1260–61, 110 N.Y.S.3d 455, 456–57 [2019] ; People v. Leone, 91 A.D.3d 981, 981, 935 N.Y.S.2d 908 [2012] ; People v. Tallman, 82 A.D.3d 1363, 1364, 9......