People v. Taylor

212 A.D.3d 891

180 N.Y.S.3d 729

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Melvin TAYLOR Jr., Appellant.

112316

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

Calendar Date: November 14, 2022

Decided and Entered: January 5, 2023

Aaron A. Louridas, Delmar, for appellant.

Michael A. Korchak, District Attorney, Binghamton (Benjamin E. Holwitt of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Clark, Aarons, Pritzker and McShan, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pritzker, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Kevin P. Dooley, J.), rendered December 13, 2019, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Defendant was indicted on three counts each of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The People extended an offer to defendant to plead guilty to the reduced charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree in satisfaction of the indictment, waive his right to appeal and be sentenced to a prison term of 1½ years followed by two years of postrelease supervision. At the time, defendant was serving a sentence on an unrelated felony conviction and, in connection therewith, was participating in a drug treatment program. Defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and purportedly waived his right to appeal. Defendant subsequently moved to withdraw his plea, premised on, among other things, his innocence and coercion. County Court denied the motion and, thereafter, sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to the agreed-upon sentence. Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered. Regardless of the validity of his appeal waiver, defendant's challenge to his guilty plea is not precluded (see People v. Goodwalt, 205 A.D.3d 1070, 1072, 167 N.Y.S.3d 250 [3d Dept. 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1071, 171 N.Y.S.3d 452, 191 N.E.3d 404 [2022] ) and is preserved by his unsuccessful motion to withdraw his plea (see People v. Rodriguez, 206 A.D.3d 1383, 1384, 170 N.Y.S.3d 359 [3d Dept. 2022] ). With regard to the voluntariness of the plea, defendant contends, among other things, that he was coerced into pleading guilty because County Court impermissibly linked his continued participation in a drug treatment program in connection with an unrelated felony conviction to his instant guilty plea.¹ We disagree.

"It is well settled that, in order to be valid and enforceable, a guilty plea must be entered voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently" ( People v. Brown, 14 N.Y.3d 113, 116, 897 N.Y.S.2d 674, 924 N.E.2d 782 [2010] [citation omitted]). Further, "[a] guilty plea is voluntary only if it represents an informed choice freely made by [a] defendant among other valid alternatives" ( id. ; accord People v. Hollmond, 191 A.D.3d 120, 136, 135 N.Y.S.3d 449 [2d Dept. 2020] ), and it may not "be coerced, either by actual physical compulsion, threats and the like or ‘by the duress of circumstances’ " ( People v. White, 32 N.Y.2d 393, 399, 345 N.Y.S.2d 513, 298 N.E.2d 659 [1973], quoting People v. Flowers, 30 N.Y.2d 315, 317, 333 N.Y.S.2d 393, 284 N.E.2d 557 [1972] ). "While bare and unsubstantiated claims of coercion or duress, without more, are insufficient to warrant vacatur of a guilty plea, vacatur may be warranted where the record substantiates a defendant's claim that a guilty plea was motivated, at least in part, by some unduly coercive circumstance" ( People v. Wentland, 191 A.D.3d 704, 707, 139 N.Y.S.3d 356 [2d Dept. 2021] [internal quotation marks, ellipsis and citations omitted], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1124, 146 N.Y.S.3d 203, 169 N.E.3d 561 [2021] ; see People v. Flowers, 30 N.Y.2d at 318–319, 333 N.Y.S.2d 393, 284 N.E.2d 557 ; People v. Grant, 61 A.D.3d 177, 183, 873 N.Y.S.2d 355 [2d Dept. 2009] ).

A review of the record does not substantiate defendant's contention that his decision to plead guilty was motivated, at least in part, by an unduly coercive condition. There is no dispute that, if defendant opted to plead guilty at his appearance in September 2019, he would be remanded back to the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (hereinafter DOCCS) and it was presumed that, by doing so, he would be able to complete the last few days of the drug treatment program that he was currently participating in. In the alternative, if defendant chose not to plead guilty, he would be remanded to jail in Broome County to await trial approximately 10 days later.² Notably, the record reveals that defendant opted to accept the very favorable plea deal prior to any mention of being returned to DOCCS for completion of the drug treatment program. Specifically, at the commencement of the court appearance the plea offer was placed on the record and defense counsel asked for a brief recess to speak with defendant. County Court granted the request. Once back on the record, defense counsel stated that defendant wanted to accept the plea offer. Another recess was then taken as the People did not have a necessary second felony offender statement. Once back on the record, the court informed defendant that there had been a brief conference and defendant's counsel inquired as to whether the court would order "judicial shock" on the instant conviction. The court explained that defendant "should not plan on that happening." It was only then that the court informed defendant that, if he entered a plea that day, the court would grant a lengthy adjournment for sentencing and allow defendant to return to DOCCS for the purpose of completing the drug treatment program. Defendant indicated his understanding and the plea colloquy commenced.

During the plea colloquy, defendant indicated that he had had enough time to...