People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 29 October 2015
• Citation: 20 N.Y.S.3d 176,132 A.D.3d 1155
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert WILLIAMS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

132 A.D.3d 1155

20 N.Y.S.3d 176

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Robert WILLIAMS, Appellant.

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

Oct. 29, 2015.

Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, for appellant.

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

Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., GARRY, LYNCH and DEVINE, JJ.

GARRY, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), rendered June 5, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a multicount indictment stemming from an incident in which he was discovered operating a motor vehicle containing a quantity of heroin, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. He was thereafter sentenced in accord with his plea agreement to a prison term of seven years to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Initially, we find defendant's waiver of his right to appeal invalid, as County Court "did not adequately convey that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty but, rather, improperly lumped those rights together" (People v. Vences, 125 A.D.3d 1050, 1051, 3 N.Y.S.3d 185 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Blackmon, 122 A.D.3d 1071, 1072, 996 N.Y.S.2d 769 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1218 [2015] ). Further, although defendant executed a detailed written waiver, the court's colloquy was not adequate to ensure that defendant understood the content or consequences of the appeal waiver (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264–265, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 [2011] ; People v. Mones, 130 A.D.3d 1244, 1245, 13 N.Y.S.3d 686 [2015] ).

Turning to the merits, we reject defendant's contention that the traffic stop of his vehicle was without legal justification. It is fundamental that "probable cause exists for a traffic stop if an officer observes a defendant committing a traffic violation" (People v. Portelli, 116 A.D.3d 1163, 1164, 983 N.Y.S.2d 355 [2014] ). The arresting officer testified at the suppression hearing that defendant's vehicle passed by his location and he observed that the vehicle did not have an illuminated license plate (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375[2][a][4] ). The officer then followed the vehicle to confirm his initial observation and, upon catching up to it, further observed that the vehicle had excessively tinted windows (seeVehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [12–a ] [b][2] ). The officer then initiated the traffic stop. County Court credited this testimony, and "we accord great weight to the suppression court's factual findings that are supported by the record" (People v. Morris, 105 A.D.3d 1075, 1077, 962 N.Y.S.2d 760 [2013], lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1042, 981 N.Y.S.2d 376, 4 N.E.3d 388 [2013] ). Here, as the uncontroverted testimony of the arresting officer confirmed that the stop was initiated only after the officer had observed two violations, we find no error in County Court's determination that the stop of defendant's vehicle was justified (see People v. Thompson, 106 A.D.3d 1134, 1135, 963 N.Y.S.2d 780 [2013] ; People v. Hawkins, 45 A.D.3d 989, 990–991, 845 N.Y.S.2d 171 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 1034, 852 N.Y.S.2d 20, 881 N.E.2d 1207 [2008] ; People v. Brooks, 23 A.D.3d 847, 849, 804 N.Y.S.2d 140 [2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 810, 812 N.Y.S.2d 449, 845 N.E.2d 1280 [2006] ).

Finally, we disagree with defendant's assertion that the sentence imposed by County Court was harsh and excessive. Defendant was sentenced to a prison term of seven years with two years of postrelease supervision despite his...