Opinion
115 KA 15–01657
02-09-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Cristy L. STUTZMAN, Defendant–Appellant.
D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (JOHN A. CIRANDO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. PATRICK E. SWANSON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MAYVILLE (EMILY A. WOODARD OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (JOHN A. CIRANDO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
PATRICK E. SWANSON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MAYVILLE (EMILY A. WOODARD OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND CURRAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her, upon her plea of guilty, of unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree ( Penal Law § 220.73[2] ). As the People correctly concede, defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid (see People v. Bouton, 107 A.D.3d 1035, 1036, 967 N.Y.S.2d 200 [3d Dept. 2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 1072, 974 N.Y.S.2d 321, 997 N.E.2d 146 [2013] ).
Defendant's contention that her plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered is preserved for our review only with respect to the contentions that she raised in her motion to withdraw the plea (see id. at 1037, 967 N.Y.S.2d 200 ), i.e., that the plea was coerced and that she was innocent because she had a defense to one of the charges that was satisfied by her plea. Thus, defendant failed to preserve for our review her remaining contentions, including that her colloquy was insufficient because she gave only one-word answers to County Court's questions regarding her rights and that she made statements at sentencing that cast doubt on the voluntariness of the plea. In any event, we reject all of defendant's contentions.
With respect to defendant's unpreserved contentions, the Court of Appeals has "said repeatedly that there is no requirement for a uniform mandatory catechism of pleading defendants" ( People v. Seeber , 4 N.Y.3d 780, 781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Thus, contrary to defendant's contention, her " ‘yes' and ‘no’ answers during the plea colloqu[y] do not invalidate [her] guilty plea [ ]" ( People v. Russell, 133 A.D.3d 1199, 1199, 20 N.Y.S.3d 760 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1149, 32 N.Y.S.3d 63, 51 N.E.3d 574[2016]; see People v. Barrett, 153 A.D.3d 1600, 1600, 62 N.Y.S.3d 653 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1058, 71 N.Y.S.3d 8, 94 N.E.3d 490, 2017 WL 6945195 [2017] ). Defendant's comments at sentencing do not "cast doubt upon [her] guilt and the voluntariness of [her] plea" such that further inquiry from the court at sentencing was required ( People v. Gresham, 151 A.D.3d 1175, 1177, 57 N.Y.S.3d 532 [3d Dept. 2017] ; see People v. Jackson, 273 A.D.2d 937, 937, 711 N.Y.S.2d 807 [4th Dept. 2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 906, 716 N.Y.S.2d 646, 739 N.E.2d 1151 [2000]; see generally People v. Vogt, 150 A.D.3d 1704, 1705, 54 N.Y.S.3d 259 [4th Dept. 2017] ).
With respect to defendant's preserved contentions in support of her motion to withdraw her plea, i.e., that the plea was coerced and that she was innocent because she had a defense to one of the charges that was satisfied by the plea, defendant contends that the court abused its discretion in denying her motion to withdraw her plea without conducting a hearing. It is well settled that "the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances" ( People v. Manor, 27 N.Y.3d 1012, 1013, 35 N.Y.S.3d 272, 54 N.E.3d 1143 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion in the absence of "some evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in inducing the plea" ( People v. Noce, 145 A.D.3d 1456, 1457, 43 N.Y.S.3d 626 [4th Dept. 2016] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Indeed, most of defendant's contentions regarding the motion, including her protestations of innocence, were belied by the affidavits submitted in support of the motion (see generally People v. Culver, 94 A.D.3d 1427, 1427–1428, 942 N.Y.S.2d 832 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 1025, 953 N.Y.S.2d 558, 978 N.E.2d 110 [2012] ).
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.