People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 31 January 2013 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Isiah WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Marjorie M. Kirkaldy, Binghamton, for appellant.
Gwen Wilkinson, District Attorney, Ithaca (Daniel Johnson of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MERCURE, J.P., ROSE, LAHTINEN and GARRY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tompkins County (Rowley, J.), rendered September 8, 2009, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of scheme to defraud in the first degree.
Defendant and a codefendant were charged in a 26–count indictment with numerous theft-related crimes. In connection therewith, defendant entered into a plea memorandum setting forth the terms of a plea agreement, which included waiving his right to appeal. Thereafter, he pleaded guilty to the crime of scheme to defraud in the first degree in full satisfaction of the indictment. At some point on that same date, he also executed a separate written waiver of his right to appeal. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, he was sentenced as a predicate felon to 1 1/2 to 3 years in prison, which sentence was to run concurrently with two other sentences he was then serving. Defendant now appeals.
Initially, we agree with defendant that the waiver of his right to appeal was invalid. Although the written waiver was comprehensive and included a provision indicating that it was separate from the other rights that he was forfeiting as a result of his guilty plea, absolutely no mention of such waiver was made during the plea proceedings. Consequently, it is impossible to ascertain if defendant understood the nature or ramifications of the waiver or the rights he was forfeiting. Under these circumstances, this record does not provide us with a sufficient basis for concluding that the waiver was knowing, voluntary and intelligent ( see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 265, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 [2011];People v. Burton, 93 A.D.3d 949, 949, 939 N.Y.S.2d 717 [2012],lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 958, 950 N.Y.S.2d 110, 973 N.E.2d 208 [2012];People v. Borden, 91 A.D.3d 1124, 1125, 936 N.Y.S.2d 752 [2012],lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 862, 947 N.Y.S.2d 411, 970 N.E.2d 434 [2012] ) and, therefore, we find it to be unenforceable.
Defendant next challenges the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution. While not precluded by the invalid waiver, this issue is unpreserved as the record before us indicates that defendant has failed to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v. Teele, 92 A.D.3d 972, 972, 937 N.Y.S.2d 692 [2012];People v. Klages, 90 A.D.3d 1149, 1150, 934 N.Y.S.2d 259 [2011],lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 925, 942 N.Y.S.2d 464, 965 N.E.2d 966 [2012] ). Moreover, the exception to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brewster
...150 A.D.3d 1543, 1544, 52 N.Y.S.3d 680 [2017] ; People v. O'Neill, 116 A.D.3d 1240, 1241, 983 N.Y.S.2d 738 [2014] ; People v. Williams, 102 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 958 N.Y.S.2d 533 [2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 1044, 981 N.Y.S.2d 378, 4 N.E.3d 390 [2013] ). Moreover, the narrow exception to the pr......
-
Cucinella v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.
...abused its discretion in declining to reopen the hearing to accept certain hearsay letters from his accountant, are without merit.1 [958 N.Y.S.2d 533]As noted by the Board, claimant declined to produce his accountant to testify in the course of this lengthy litigation despite numerous oppor......
-
People v. Gruber
...requirement is not implicated ( see People v. Secore, 102 A.D.3d 1059, 1060, 958 N.Y.S.2d 538 [2013];[108 A.D.3d 878]People v. Williams, 102 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 958 N.Y.S.2d 533 [2013] ). Were we to consider defendant's argument that his plea was rendered involuntary because the appeal waive......
-
People v. Ties
...as part of the plea agreement (see People v. Frysinger, 111 A.D.3d 1397, 1398, 974 N.Y.S.2d 860 [4th Dept.2013] ; People v. Williams, 102 A.D.3d 1055, 958 N.Y.S.2d 533 [3d Dept.2013], lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1044, 981 N.Y.S.2d 378, 4 N.E.3d 390 [2013] ). Defendant's suppression motion should h......