People v. Walker
| Decision Date | 20 December 2012 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William WALKER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
101 A.D.3d 1350
956 N.Y.S.2d 306
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08820
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
William WALKER, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Dec. 20, 2012.
[956 N.Y.S.2d 307]
Paul J. Connolly, Delmar, for appellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MERCURE, J.P., SPAIN, MALONE JR., STEIN and McCARTHY, JJ.
McCARTHY, J.
[101 A.D.3d 1350]Appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (R. Sise, J.), rendered July 14, 2009 in Ulster County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of possessing a sexual performance by a child, and (2) by permission, from an order of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), entered April 15, 2011, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to vacate his sentence, without a hearing.
Defendant waived indictment and was charged by superior court information with possessing a sexual performance by a child. He pleaded guilty to that crime in exchange for a promised sentence of six months in jail. At the time of the plea, County Court (Bruhn, J.) admonished defendant that it would not be bound by the sentencing agreement if defendant did not follow [101 A.D.3d 1351]certain rules, namely, “Do not commit any new crimes. Do not get yourself arrested again for any reason.” Shortly after the plea, defendant was arrested for assaulting a correction officer at the jail. Approximately a month after the plea, defendant was arrested for obstructing governmental administration and sexual abuse in the first degree based on allegations that he inappropriately touched a young child. The court granted defendant's request that he be assigned new counsel. Based on defendant's new arrests, Supreme Court (R. Sise, J.) found that he violated the admonishments and imposed an enhanced sentence of 1 1/3 to 4 years in prison. Defendant appeals. Defendant also appeals, by permission, from an order of County Court (Williams, J.) that denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to vacate his sentence, without a hearing.
Defendant did not receive the effective assistance of counsel. 1 At sentencing,
the new counsel who had been assigned—for this charge and at least some of the new charges—stated that he had spoken with defendant “at length.” Supreme Court noted that it had provided counsel with the transcript from the plea proceeding. When the court asked if “defense...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shirley v. Shirley
...contractor on the same military base where he previously was stationed. The fiancé testified that he had the financial wherewithal [956 N.Y.S.2d 306]to support the mother and the children, all of whom would be covered under his health insurance once he and the mother married, and that this ......
-
People v. Walker
...of 1 1/3 to 4 years in prison. On defendant's direct appeal, this Court vacated the enhanced sentence and remitted for resentencing (101 A.D.3d 1350, 956 N.Y.S.2d 306 [2012] ). Prior to defendant's release from prison, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders prepared a risk assessment instr......
-
People v. Walker
...an inquiry into the scope of the admonishments “and whether defendant was entitled to a hearing to establish any violation of” them (101 A.D.3d 1350, 1351, 956 N.Y.S.2d 306 [2012] ). County Court (Williams, J.) conducted a hearing and determined that defendant had indeed violated the admoni......