Opinion
106583
08-13-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ramonn S. DRISCOLL, Appellant.
Abbie Goldbas, Utica, for appellant. Mark D. Suben, District Attorney, Cortland (Zela E. Brotherton of counsel), for respondent.
Abbie Goldbas, Utica, for appellant.
Mark D. Suben, District Attorney, Cortland (Zela E. Brotherton of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., ROSE, LYNCH and CLARK, JJ.
Opinion Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County (Campbell, J.), rendered March 27, 2014, 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 five-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. As part of the plea agreement, he was to waive his right to appeal and be sentenced to a cap of one year of incarceration, followed by one year of postrelease supervision. In addition, County Court imposed certain conditions on the sentence advising defendant, among other things, that if he was arrested prior to sentencing, it would not be obligated to impose the agreed-upon sentence. Before sentencing, defendant was arrested on two separate occasions. Although defense counsel questioned the validity of these arrests, County Court imposed an enhanced sentence of three years in prison, to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision, based upon defendant's violation of the sentencing conditions. Defendant declined to complete his signing of the written waiver of his right to appeal at sentencing and he now appeals.
County Court denied defendant's oral motion to withdraw his plea at sentencing.
--------
Defendant's sole challenge is to County Court's imposition of the enhanced sentence based upon his two arrests. When the validity of a postplea arrest is called into question, “the court must conduct an inquiry at which the defendant has an opportunity to show that the arrest is without foundation” (People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702, 713, 594 N.Y.S.2d 683, 610 N.E.2d 356 [1993], cert. denied 519 U.S. 964, 117 S.Ct. 386, 136 L.Ed.2d 303 [1996] ; see People v. Fiammegta, 14 N.Y.3d 90, 97, 896 N.Y.S.2d 735, 923 N.E.2d 1123 [2010] ; People v. Smalls, 85 A.D.3d 1450, 1451, 926 N.Y.S.2d 192 [2011] ). Significantly, “[t]he nature and extent of the inquiry-whether through a summary hearing pursuant to CPL 400.10 or some other fair means-is within the court's discretion [but it] must be of sufficient depth, ... so that the court can be satisfied ... of the existence of a legitimate basis for the arrest” (People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d at 713, 594 N.Y.S.2d 683, 610 N.E.2d 356 [internal citation omitted] ).
Here, County Court did not conduct a formal evidentiary hearing regarding the validity of defendant's two arrests, and one was not required (see id. at 713, 594 N.Y.S.2d 683, 610 N.E.2d 356 ; People v. Talbot, 114 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 981 N.Y.S.2d 152 [2014] ). Instead, the court made an on-the-record inquiry during the sentencing proceeding at which it considered the accusatory instruments, supporting documentation and arguments of counsel before concluding that a legitimate basis existed for defendant's arrests. Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that County Court's inquiry was adequate and established that a legitimate basis existed for defendant's arrests thereby warranting its imposition of the enhanced sentence (see People v. Talbot, 114 A.D.3d at 1001, 981 N.Y.S.2d 152 ; People v. Paneto, 112 A.D.3d 1230, 1231, 976 N.Y.S.2d 745 [2013], lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 1023, 992 N.Y.S.2d 806, 16 N.E.3d 1286 [2014] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.