People v. Young

Decision Date03 February 2011
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John YOUNG, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Brian Callahan, Duanesburg, for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady, for respondent.

Before: MERCURE, J.P., SPAIN, ROSE, LAHTINEN and GARRY, JJ.

SPAIN, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Sise, J.), rendered September 11, 2009, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree in full satisfaction of a four-count indictment and waived his right to appeal. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant agreed to be sentenced as a predicate felony offender to a term of five years in prison, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision, and he agreed to pay restitution. Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw his plea on the grounds that hisplea was involuntary due to County Court not properly advising him as to his status as a predicate felony offender and that the court coerced him into pleading guilty by commenting on the strength of the evidence against him. County Court denied the motion and thereafter imposed the agreed-upon sentence, including the mandatory surcharge pursuant to Penal Law § 60.35. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that his plea was involuntary due to his claim that he was informed prior to entering the plea that his sentence would not include the mandatory surcharge. While challenges to the voluntariness of a plea survive a waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Barrett, 71 A.D.3d 1340, 1340-1341, 896 N.Y.S.2d 698 [2010] ), inasmuch as defendant failed to raise this issue in a motion to withdraw his plea ( see People v. Escalante, 16 A.D.3d 984, 984-985, 792 N.Y.S.2d 253 [2005], lvs. denied 5 N.Y.3d 788, 793, 801 N.Y.S.2d 809, 814, 835 N.E.2d 669, 674 [2005]; People v. Townsend, 257 A.D.2d 458, 458, 683 N.Y.S.2d 253 [1999] ) or to move to vacate his judgment of conviction, this issue is not preserved for our review ( see People v. Swart, 20 A.D.3d 691, 692, 797 N.Y.S.2d 780 [2005] ). In any event, our review of the record reveals no indication that defendant's plea was made in reliance on a promise that he would not have to pay the surcharge, and defendant was informed by County Court prior to his plea hearing that the surcharge...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • People v. Irvis
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 22, 2011
    ...application to vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v. Robinson, 86 A.D.3d 719, 720, 926 N.Y.S.2d 751 [2011]; People v. Young, 81 A.D.3d 995, 995, 916 N.Y.S.2d 279 [2011], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 901, 926 N.Y.S.2d 36, 949 N.E.2d 984 [2011] ). Moreover, defendant made no statement dur......
  • Carrie B. v. Josephine B.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 3, 2011
    ...that she refused an offer to surrender the children or was penalized for taking issue with the allegations of permanent neglect. On916 N.Y.S.2d 279these facts, we cannot conclude that the statutory scheme, as applied to petitioner, violated her constitutional rights. ORDERED that the order ......
  • People v. Dame
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 1, 2012
    ...on this point to be unpreserved for our review ( see People v. Campbell, 81 A.D.3d 1184, 1185, 917 N.Y.S.2d 419 [2011];People v. Young, 81 A.D.3d 995, 996, 916 N.Y.S.2d 279 [2011],lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 901, 926 N.Y.S.2d 36, 949 N.E.2d 984 [2011];People v. Escalante, 16 A.D.3d 984, 984–985, 79......
  • People v. Seuffert
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 21, 2013
    ...as he did not raise this issue in his motion to withdraw the plea, the issue is not preserved for our review ( see People v. Young, 81 A.D.3d 995, 996, 916 N.Y.S.2d 279 [2011],lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 901, 926 N.Y.S.2d 36, 949 N.E.2d 984 [2011] ). Further, the narrow exception to the preservatio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT