Opinion
110071, 113305
04-27-2023
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Shane LAURANGE, Appellant.
Marshall Nadan, Kingston, for appellant. Paul Czajka, District Attorney, Hudson (James A. Carlucci of counsel), for respondent.
Marshall Nadan, Kingston, for appellant.
Paul Czajka, District Attorney, Hudson (James A. Carlucci of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and McShan, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Lynch, J. Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Richard M. Koweek, J.), rendered May 31, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts) and disseminating indecent material to a minor in the first degree (six counts), and (2) from a judgment of said court, rendered March 2, 2017, which resentenced defendant.
Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree and six counts of disseminating indecent material to a minor in the first degree and purportedly waived the right to appeal. County Court sentenced defendant to prison terms of 3½ years followed by 15 years of postrelease supervision on each of the sexual abuse convictions and prison terms of 3½ to 7 years on each of the disseminating indecent material to a minor convictions, with all the sentences to run concurrently. After it was discovered that the record was not clear that defendant was being sentenced as a second felony offender, County Court resentenced defendant as such, imposing the same sentences. Defendant appeals from both the original judgment of conviction and the judgment upon resentencing. We affirm. Initially, the People concede – and our review of the record confirms – that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid, as County Court failed to distinguish the right to appeal from the rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea and did not adequately explain the waiver's ramifications (see People v. Lilliard, 206 A.D.3d 1241, 1242, 169 N.Y.S.3d 744 [3d Dept. 2022] ; People v. Alexander, 194 A.D.3d 1261, 1262, 147 N.Y.S.3d 261 [3d Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1094, 156 N.Y.S.3d 771, 178 N.E.3d 418 [2021] ). Defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel by counsel's failure to proceed with a suppression hearing was forfeited by his guilty plea (see People v. Woods, 199 A.D.3d 1169, 1169, 154 N.Y.S.3d 496 [3d Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1166, 160 N.Y.S.3d 687, 181 N.E.3d 1115 [2022] ; People v. Coates, 167 A.D.3d 1161, 1161, 87 N.Y.S.3d 914 [3d Dept. 2018] ). To the extent that defendant's contention implicates the voluntariness of his plea, it is unpreserved for our review due to defendant's failure to make an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Soprano, 135 A.D.3d 1243, 1243, 23 N.Y.S.3d 592 [3d Dept. 2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1007, 38 N.Y.S.3d 116, 59 N.E.3d 1228 [2016] ; People v. White, 122 A.D.3d 1005, 1006, 995 N.Y.S.2d 653 [3d Dept. 2014] ). Although defendant also contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel not filing a notice of appeal on the original judgment, an extension of time to file the notice of appeal on that judgment was granted and claimant was not prejudiced by counsel's alleged omission (see People v. Saylor, 132 A.D.3d 1018, 1019 n., 17 N.Y.S.3d 324 [3d Dept. 2015] ; People v. Pecararo, 83 A.D.3d 1284, 1287, 920 N.Y.S.2d 859 [3d Dept. 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 820, 929 N.Y.S.2d 809, 954 N.E.2d 100 [2011] ).
Inasmuch as defendant does not make any arguments relating to the resentencing judgment, we deem his appeal from that judgment to be abandoned (see People v. Washington, 206 A.D.3d 1278, 1279 n. 1, 170 N.Y.S.3d 329 [3d Dept. 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 942, 177 N.Y.S.3d 538, 198 N.E.3d 781 [2022] ).
Garry, P.J., Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and McShan, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.