People v. Zabawczuk

• Decision Date: 28 May 2015
• Docket Number: 105274
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Scott W. ZABAWCZUK, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

128 A.D.3d 1267

11 N.Y.S.3d 692

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04519

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent

v.Scott W. ZABAWCZUK, Appellant.

105274

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

May 28, 2015.

M. Elizabeth Coreno, Saratoga Springs, for appellant.

James E. Conboy, District Attorney, Fonda (William J. Mycek of counsel), for respondent.

Before: McCARTHY, J.P., LYNCH, DEVINE and CLARK, JJ.

Opinion

LYNCH, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County (Catena, J.), rendered August 22, 2011, convicting defendant upon his guilty plea of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant entered a guilty plea to burglary in the second degree stemming from his involvement in a home invasion with three other people during which cash and other valuables were stolen from the homeowner's safe and the homeowner was assaulted. In accordance with the plea agreement, which also included an appeal waiver, defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 10 years with five years of postrelease supervision and restitution. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant claims that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent because the People tied the plea offer to their support of his right to be released on bail. However, defendant did not raise this contention before County Court or move to withdraw his guilty plea and, therefore, it is not preserved for our review (see People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 182–183, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617 [2013], cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 90, 190 L.Ed.2d 75 [2014] ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ). In any event, defendant's claim concerns an appearance almost two months before his entry of a guilty plea. While we agree that the People improperly interjected the issue of bail into the plea negotiations at that appearance, the court released defendant on bail at that time.¹ After defendant entered a guilty plea, he was continued on bail pending sentencing. Thus, the record belies his claim that he was forced to enter a guilty plea in order to achieve bail (see People v. Todd, 276 A.D.2d 913, 914, 715 N.Y.S.2d 464 [2000] ). That is, neither the court nor the People required that he choose between admitting guilt and remaining free or maintaining his innocence and remaining in jail (see People v. Baker, 104 A.D.3d 783, 783, 960 N.Y.S.2d 511 [2013], lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1013, 971 N.Y.S.2d 495, 994 N.E.2d 391 [2013], cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 700, 187 L.Ed.2d 552 [2013] ; cf. People v. Grant, 61 A.D.3d 177, 183–184, 873 N.Y.S.2d 355 [2009] ). Further, our review of the plea allocution reveals that the guilty plea represented “an informed choice freely made by defendant among other valid alternatives” (People v. Brown, 14 N.Y.3d 113, 116, 897 N.Y.S.2d 674, 924 N.E.2d 782 [2010] ) and that it was entered knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently (see People v. Tyrell, 22 N.Y.3d 359, 365, 981 N.Y.S.2d 336, 4 N.E.3d 346 [2013] ).

Although the plea agreement included a waiver of the right to appeal signed in open court, the record reflects that it was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent because County Court did not explain or ascertain that defendant understood the nature of the right being waived, including that the right was “separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a guilty plea” (People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ; see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 [2011] ; People v. Ritter, 124 A.D.3d 1133, 1134 [2015] ; People v. Blackmon, 122 A.D.3d 1071, 1071, 996 N.Y.S.2d 769 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1218, 4 N.Y.S.3d 606, 28 N.E.3d 42 [2015] ). As the appeal waiver is invalid, he is not precluded from challenging the sentence as harsh and excessive. In view of the nature of the crime perpetrated against an elderly victim in his home and defendant's extensive criminal history, we are not persuaded by his claims that the sentence imposed, which was in the middle range (see ...