Opinion
345 KA 19-01577
04-30-2021
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph A. CAFARELLI, Defendant-Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (BRIDGET L. FIELD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (BRIDGET L. FIELD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CURRAN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree ( Penal Law § 220.16 [1] ). We affirm.
Defendant contends that the plea should be vacated on the ground that the plea colloquy was factually insufficient because it undermined his admission of guilt and on the ground that his decision to plead guilty was not voluntary. Defendant failed, however, to preserve that contention for our review (see People v. Wilkes , 160 A.D.3d 1491, 1491, 76 N.Y.S.3d 342 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1154, 83 N.Y.S.3d 436, 108 N.E.3d 510 [2018] ; People v. Sheppard , 154 A.D.3d 1329, 1329, 63 N.Y.S.3d 173 [4th Dept. 2017] ; People v. Brinson , 130 A.D.3d 1493, 1493, 11 N.Y.S.3d 788 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 965, 18 N.Y.S.3d 601, 40 N.E.3d 579 [2015] ), and this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement. To the extent that defendant negated an essential element of the crime during the plea colloquy when he denied intending to sell the drugs found in his possession (see People v. Lopez , 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ), we note that County Court immediately conducted the requisite further inquiry to ensure that defendant's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see id. ; People v. Rojas , 147 A.D.3d 1535, 1536, 47 N.Y.S.3d 813 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1036, 62 N.Y.S.3d 305, 84 N.E.3d 977 [2017] ; People v. Waterman , 229 A.D.2d 1013, 1013, 645 N.Y.S.2d 666 [4th Dept. 1996] ). We conclude that "defendant's responses to the court's subsequent questions removed [any] doubt about [his] guilt" ( People v. Vogt , 150 A.D.3d 1704, 1705, 54 N.Y.S.3d 259 [4th Dept. 2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Bonacci , 119 A.D.3d 1348, 1349, 988 N.Y.S.2d 391 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 1042, 998 N.Y.S.2d 312, 23 N.E.3d 155 [2014] ; People v. Ocasio , 265 A.D.2d 675, 677-678, 697 N.Y.S.2d 368 [3d Dept. 1999] ).
We also conclude that defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel. " ‘In the context of a guilty plea, a defendant has been afforded meaningful representation when he or she receives an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel’ " ( People v. Singletary , 51 A.D.3d 1334, 1335, 858 N.Y.S.2d 483 [3d Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 741, 864 N.Y.S.2d 400, 894 N.E.2d 664 [2008] ). Here, defendant received a very favorable plea, and he has not demonstrated "the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations" for counsel's alleged shortcomings at the plea colloquy ( People v. Rivera , 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698 [1988] ; see People v. Booth , 158 A.D.3d 1253, 1255, 70 N.Y.S.3d 704 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1078, 79 N.Y.S.3d 100, 103 N.E.3d 1247 [2018] ; People v. Meddaugh , 150 A.D.3d 1545, 1547-1548, 55 N.Y.S.3d 777 [3d Dept. 2017] ).