PEOPLE v. PETERSON

NO. 106709

147 A.D.3d 1148 (2017)

46 N.Y.S.3d 436

2017 NY Slip Op 01024

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL PETERSON, Appellant.

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


Egan Jr., J.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.), rendered September 6, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal contempt in the first degree, and (2) from a judgment of said court, rendered November 15, 2013, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal contempt in the first degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court sentenced him on September 6, 2013 to time served and a five-year term of probation. On September 27, 2013, defendant was arrested and charged with falsely reporting an incident in the third degree and assault in the third degree. Based upon his arrest, defendant also was charged with violating his probation. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, which included a waiver of the right to appeal, defendant admitted to violating his probation. On November 15, 2013, County Court revoked defendant's probation and resentenced him to the agreed-upon prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendant now appeals.*

We affirm. Contrary to defendant's contention, the plea colloquies and the counseled written waivers demonstrate that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his conviction and resentence (see People v Long, 117 A.D.3d 1326, 1326 [2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 1003 [2014]; People v Frasier, 105 A.D.3d 1079, 1080 [2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 1088 [2014]). The valid appeal waivers preclude defendant's challenge to his resentence as harsh and excessive (see People v Moulton, 134 A.D.3d 1251, 1252 [2015]; People v Handly, 122 A.D.3d 1007, 1008 [2014]).

Defendant's challenges to the voluntariness of both his plea to the criminal contempt charge and his admission to violating his probation are not preserved for our review, inasmuch as the record fails to disclose that he made an appropriate postallocution motion and, further, defendant made no statements during the colloquies so as to trigger the narrow exception to the preservation rule (see People v Woodard, 139 A.D.3d 1238, 1238-1239 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 939 [2016]; People v Skidds, 123 A.D.3d 1342, 1342-1343 [2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 992 [2015]). Similarly, the lack of an appropriate postallocution motion renders defendant's claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel unpreserved for our review (see People v Beach, 115 A.D.3d 1117, 1118 [2014]; People v Alexander, 110 A.D.3d 1111, 1112 [2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 1154 [2014]).

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

FootNotes


* Defendant's pro se notice of appeal, filed in August 2014, is from a "judgment" rendered July 10, 2013. While there is no such judgment in the record before us, it appears that defendant intended to appeal from both the September 6, 2013 and November 15, 2013 judgments. As such, we will exercise our discretion and overlook this error (see CPL 460.10 [6]).

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases