People v. White

• Decision Date: 30 May 2019
• Docket Number: 109113
• Citation: 172 A.D.3d 1822,101 N.Y.S.3d 519
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Quennel WHITE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

172 A.D.3d 1822

101 N.Y.S.3d 519

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Quennel WHITE, Appellant.

109113

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

Calendar Date: May 1, 2019

Decided and Entered: May 30, 2019

Erin C. Morigerato, Albany, for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Aarons, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Sypniewski, J.), rendered January 10, 2017, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with various drug-related offenses. After twice rejecting plea offers from the People, defendant ultimately agreed to plead guilty – in full satisfaction of the indictment – to one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree with the understanding that he would be sentenced – as a second felony offender – to a prison term of 3½ years followed by two years of postrelease supervision. The plea agreement also required defendant to waive his right to appeal. Consistent with that agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to the subject crime and was sentenced to the contemplated term of imprisonment. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the validity of his waiver of the right to appeal is unavailing. Defendant was aware that an appeal waiver was a condition of his plea agreement, and County Court explained that such waiver was separate and distinct from the trial-related rights that defendant was forfeiting by pleading guilty (see People v. Moore, 169 A.D.3d 1110, 1111, 93 N.Y.S.3d 464 [2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 979, 101 N.Y.S.3d 233, 124 N.E.3d 722, 2019 WL 2070899 [Apr. 25, 2019] ; People v. McDonald, 165 A.D.3d 1327, 1327, 83 N.Y.S.3d 751 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1175, 97 N.Y.S.3d 591, 121 N.E.3d 218 [2019] ; People v. Chaney, 160 A.D.3d 1281, 1282–1283, 76 N.Y.S.3d 257 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1146, 83 N.Y.S.3d 427, 108 N.E.3d 501 [2018] ). After conferring with counsel, defendant executed a written waiver in open court and, in response to County Court's questioning, assured the court that he had been afforded sufficient time to review the waiver with counsel, understood the contents of the waiver and had no questions relative thereto (see People v. Sahler, 168 A.D.3d 1313, 1314, 92 N.Y.S.3d 484 [2019] ; People v. Mateo, 166 A.D.3d 1246, 1247, 87 N.Y.S.3d 736 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1207, 99 N.Y.S.3d 209, 122 N.E.3d 1122, 2019 WL 1200083 [2019] ; People v. Garcia, 164 A.D.3d 958, 958, 77 N.Y.S.3d 912 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1003, 86 N.Y.S.3d 762, 111 N.E.3d 1118 [2018] ).

Under these circumstances, we find that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. In light of the valid waiver, defendant's argument regarding the perceived severity of the agreed-upon sentence is precluded (see People v. Freeman, 169 A.D.3d 1115, 1116, 92 N.Y.S.3d 496 [2019] ; People v. Chapman, 168 A.D.3d 1315, 1316, 90 N.Y.S.3d 920 [2019] ).

Although defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim – to the extent that it impacts the voluntariness of his plea – survive the valid appeal waiver, these issues are unpreserved for our review, as the record does not reflect that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion – despite having ample opportunity to do so prior to sentencing (see People v. Prince, 170 A.D.3d 1380, 1381, 96 N.Y.S.3d 386 [2019] ; People v. Johnson, 170 A.D.3d 1274, 1275, 95 N.Y.S.3d 467 [2019] ; People v. Taft, 169 A.D.3d 1266, 1267, 94 N.Y.S.3d 726 [2019] ). As defendant did not make any statements that negated an element of the crime to which he pleaded guilty, were inconsistent with his guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was not triggered (see People v. Freeman, 169 A.D.3d at 1116, 92 N.Y.S.3d 496 ; People v. Rivera, 167 A.D.3d 1324, 1324, 88 N.Y.S.3d 915 [2018] ; People v. White, 157 A.D.3d 1128, 1129, 69 N.Y.S.3d 444 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1018, 78 N.Y.S.3d 288, 102 N.E.3d 1069 [2018] ). In any event, County Court's misstatement as to defendant's sentencing exposure was corrected on the record well in advance of defendant's plea, and such misstatement – standing alone – would not have rendered defendant's plea involuntary (see People v. Garcia, 92 N.Y.2d 869, 870, 677 N.Y.S.2d 772, 700 N.E.2d 311 [1998] ; People v. DePerno, 148 A.D.3d 1463, 1464 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1030, 62 N.Y.S.3d 299, 84 N.E.3d 971 [2017] ). The balance of defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, including his assertion that counsel failed to properly investigate his case, explore potential defenses or research his prior criminal history, implicates matters outside of the record that are more properly pursued in the context of a CPL article 440 motion (see People v. Moore, 169 A.D.3d at 1112, 93 N.Y.S.3d 464 ; People v. Norton, 164 A.D.3d 1502, 1503–1504, 82 N.Y.S.3d 665 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1114, 91 N.Y.S.3d 365, 115 N.E.3d 637 [2018] ).

Finally, defendant's assertion that County Court failed to comply with the procedures set forth in CPL 400.21 prior to sentencing him as a second felony offender survives the valid appeal waiver because "it implicates the legality of the sentence imposed" ( People v. Quinones, 162 A.D.3d 1402, 1403, 79 N.Y.S.3d 760 [2018] ; see People v. Hartfield, 151 A.D.3d 1116, 1118, 57 N.Y.S.3d 217 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1127, 64 N.Y.S.3d 677, 86 N.E.3d 569 [2017] ). That said, even assuming that this issue has been preserved for our...