People v. Mitchell

212 N.Y.S.3d 744

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Joseph S. MITCHELL, Appellant.

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

Calendar Date: May 3, 2024

Decided and Entered: June 6, 2024

Rural Law Center of New York, Inc., Plattsburgh (Keith F. Schockmel of counsel), for appellant.

John M. Muehl, District Attorney, Cooperstown (Christopher James Di Donna of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher, McShan and Powers, JJ.

Powers, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (John F. Lambert, J.), rendered April 26, 2021, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was a passenger during a traffic stop executed in the City of Oneonta, Otsego County. During the stop, defendant fled on foot and was apprehended a short time later following a pursuit. Upon his arrest, a search of defendant’s person resulted in the discovery of cocaine, and a search of the area where the chase occurred revealed a semiautomatic handgun. Defendant was charged by indictment with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Following an unsuccessful motion to suppress, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and purported to waive his right to appeal. Defendant was subsequently sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to a prison term of three years to be followed by 1½ years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

[1] Initially, we agree that defendant did not validly waive his right to appeal. Although County Court stated passingly during the oral colloquy that the "right to appeal is … separate from [defendant’s] guilty plea," the court failed to elucidate upon this to adequately explain the "distinct nature of the waiver" (People v. Potter, 219 A.D.3d 1648, 1648, 195 N.Y.S.3d 564 [3d Dept. 2023]; see People v. Thaxton, 222 A.D.3d 1171, 1172, 202 N.Y.S.3d 518 [3d Dept. 2023]; People v. Miller, 221 A.D.3d 1177, 1178, 200 N.Y.S.3d 180 [3d Dept. 2023]). The court also advised that certain rights survived the appeal waiver, but that defendant was "giving up [his] rights to appeal everything else." While this language does suggest that some appellate rights may survive, the terse and confusing colloquy was insufficient to establish that defendant understood the nature and ramifications of the appeal waiver (see People v. Vazquez, 222 A.D.3d 1104, 1105, 201 N.Y.S.3d 766 [3d Dept. 2023], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 944, 206 N.Y.S.3d 245, 229 N.E.3d 1138 [2024]; People v. Harrison, 221 A.D.3d 1369, 1369, 198 N.Y.S.3d 622 [3d Dept. 2023]; People v. Adkins, 221 A.D.3d 1065, 1065, 197 N.Y.S.3d 364 [3d Dept. 2023]). The written waiver, executed before sentencing, did not remedy these failings in the oral colloquy. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find that defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive the right to appeal.

[2] In light of defendant’s invalid appeal waiver, his challenge to County Court’s (Burns, J.) suppression ruling is not precluded (compare People v. Bonacci, 188 A.D.3d 1447, 1449, 136 N.Y.S.3d 530 [3d Dept. 2020], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 954, 147 N.Y.S.3d 521, 170 N.E.3d 395 [2021]). However, contrary to defendant's assertion, we find that the court properly found that there was reasonable suspicion that he may have been engaged in criminal activity. "[A] defendant’s flight in response to an approach by the police, combined with other specific circumstances indicating that the suspect may be engaged in criminal activity, may give rise to reasonable suspicion, the necessary predicate for police pursuit" (People v. Woods, 98 N.Y.2d 627, 628, 745 N.Y.S.2d 749, 772 N.E.2d 1107 [2002] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Rose, 155 A.D.3d 1322, 1324, 65 N.Y.S.3d 323 [3d Dept. 2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 986, 77 N.Y.S.3d 664, 102 N.E.3d 441 [2018]).

[3] At the suppression hearing, a detective with the Oneonta City Police Department testified that a confidential informant had performed a controlled buy from an individual associated with a specific room at a local motel. Upon arriving at this motel, the detective spoke to the front desk clerk, who provided the vehicle information associated with the room in question. The detective and his partner surveilled the room and observed four individuals get into the vehicle in question, which the detectives then proceeded to follow. Upon observing the vehicle commit a traffic violation, the detective initiated the emergency lights and...