Opinion
1075 KA 19-01432
12-23-2021
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eugene H. SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.
TODD HUNTER SLOAN, AUBURN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (ERICH D. GROME OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TODD HUNTER SLOAN, AUBURN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (ERICH D. GROME OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND BANNISTER, 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 assault in the second degree ( Penal Law § 120.05 [9] ) and rape in the third degree (§ 130.25 [2]). As a preliminary matter, we conclude that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because "the perfunctory inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] ... defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice" ( People v. Soutar , 170 A.D.3d 1633, 1634, 94 N.Y.S.3d 899 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 938, 109 N.Y.S.3d 726, 133 N.E.3d 430 [2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v. Thomas , 34 N.Y.3d 545, 561, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020] ).
Defendant contends that the court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence without holding an evidentiary hearing on his alleged violation of the conditions of the plea agreement. That contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant "failed to request such a hearing and did not move to withdraw his plea on that ground" ( People v. Scott , 101 A.D.3d 1773, 1773, 957 N.Y.S.2d 554 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 1019, 971 N.Y.S.2d 502, 994 N.E.2d 398 [2013] ; see CPL 470.05 [2] ; People v. Peckham , 195 A.D.3d 1437, 1438, 145 N.Y.S.3d 475 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 994, 152 N.Y.S.3d 397, 174 N.E.3d 337 [2021] ). In any event, we conclude that the court was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing under the circumstances here and that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry inasmuch as "[b]oth defendant and his counsel were given ample opportunity to refute the court's assertions that defendant had violated the plea terms" ( People v. Albergotti , 17 N.Y.3d 748, 750, 929 N.Y.S.2d 18, 952 N.E.2d 1010 [2011] ; see People v. Coker , 133 A.D.3d 1218, 1219, 20 N.Y.S.3d 270 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 995, 38 N.Y.S.3d 105, 59 N.E.3d 1217 [2016] ; cf. People v. Stanley , 128 A.D.3d 1472, 1475, 8 N.Y.S.3d 799 [4th Dept. 2015] ).
Defendant further contends that the court erred in imposing the enhanced sentence because he did not violate the conditions of the plea agreement. We reject that contention. " ‘[T]he violation of an explicit and objective ... condition [of a sentence promise] that was accepted by the defendant can result in the imposition of an enhanced sentence’ " ( Stanley , 128 A.D.3d at 1474, 8 N.Y.S.3d 799 ; see People v. Hicks , 98 N.Y.2d 185, 189, 746 N.Y.S.2d 441, 774 N.E.2d 205 [2002] ). Indeed, " ‘a failure to abide by a condition of a [sentence promise] to truthfully answer questions asked by the probation department is an appropriate basis for the enhancement of the defendant's sentence’ " ( Stanley , 128 A.D.3d at 1474, 8 N.Y.S.3d 799 ; see Hicks , 98 N.Y.2d at 189, 746 N.Y.S.2d 441, 774 N.E.2d 205 ). Here, given its review of the presentence investigation interview and its inquiry at sentencing, during which defendant effectively repeated the statements he made during the interview, the court properly determined with respect to both counts that, "in violation of the express conditions of the plea agreement, defendant gave the [p]robation [d]epartment an account of his criminal conduct which was inconsistent with statements made during the plea allocution and failed to accept responsibility for his actions" ( People v. Coffey , 77 A.D.3d 1202, 1203, 910 N.Y.S.2d 206 [3d Dept. 2010], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 882, 939 N.Y.S.2d 752, 963 N.E.2d 129 [2012] ; see People v. Bragg , 96 A.D.3d 1071, 1071-1072, 946 N.Y.S.2d 890 [2d Dept. 2012] ; see generally Hicks , 98 N.Y.2d at 189, 746 N.Y.S.2d 441, 774 N.E.2d 205 ).
Finally, the enhanced sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.