People v. Haywood

122 A.D.3d 769

996 N.Y.S.2d 137

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07683

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent

v.Thomas HAYWOOD, appellant.

2013-09036

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Nov. 12, 2014.

Thomas R. Villecco, Jericho, N.Y., for appellant.

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Laurie Sapakoff of counsel; Christopher Cellante on the brief), for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, ROBERT J. MILLER, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Warhit, J.), rendered August 13, 2013, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he validly waived his right to appeal (see People v. Sanders, 112 A.D.3d 748, 976 N.Y.S.2d 205, lv granted 22 N.Y.3d 1160, 984 N.Y.S.2d 644, 7 N.E.3d 1132 ; People v. Arias, 100 A.D.3d 914, 953 N.Y.S.2d 892 ; People v. Gonzalez, 93 A.D.3d 679, 939 N.Y.S.2d 714 ; cf. People v. Brown,

122 A.D.3d 133, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ). However, his claim regarding the voluntariness of his plea survives such a waiver (see People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 10, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022 ; People v. Solis, 111 A.D.3d 654, 974 N.Y.S.2d 132 ). A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the County Court, and, as a general rule, its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see CPL 220.60[3] ; People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797 ; People v. Edmunson, 109 A.D.3d 621, 970 N.Y.S.2d 635 ; People v. Gordon, 107 A.D.3d 739, 740, 966 N.Y.S.2d 214 ; People v. Crawford, 106 A.D.3d 832, 833, 964 N.Y.S.2d 636 ; People v. Anderson, 98 A.D.3d 524, 949 N.Y.S.2d 207 ). Here, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. The record establishes that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered a plea of guilty (see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 ). To the extent that the defendant argues that he felt compelled to plead guilty, such contention is belied by his statements under oath at the plea proceeding, and is insufficient to warrant withdrawal of the plea or a hearing (see People v. Crawford, 106 A.D.3d at 833, 964 N.Y.S.2d 636 ; People v. Anderson, 98 A.D.3d at 524, 949 N.Y.S.2d 207 ).

The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that such alleged ineffective assistance may have affected the voluntariness of the plea (see People v. Montalvo, 105 A.D.3d 774, 775, 961 N.Y.S.2d 324 ; People v. Ramos, 77 A.D.3d 773, 774, 909 N.Y.S.2d 484 ; People v. Drago, 50 A.D.3d 920, 855 N.Y.S.2d 252 ). To the extent that the defendant contends that his counsel's conduct affected the voluntariness of the plea, such contention is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, upon matter appearing outside the record, and thus constitutes a “mixed claim of ineffective assistance” (People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ; see People v. Evans, 16 N.Y.3d 571, 572 n. 2, 925 N.Y.S.2d 366, 949 N.E.2d 457 ; People v. Crawford, 106 A.D.3d at 833, 964 N.Y.S.2d 636 ; People v. McClurkin, 96 A.D.3d 784, 785–786, 945 N.Y.S.2d 718 ). Here, it is not evident from the matter appearing on the record that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (cf. People v. Crump, 53 N.Y.2d 824, 440 N.Y.S.2d 170, 422 N.E.2d 815 ; People v. Brown, 45 N.Y.2d 852, 410 N.Y.S.2d 287, 382 N.E.2d 1149 ). Inasmuch as the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing this claim in its entirety (see People v. Crawford, 106 A.D.3d...