Opinion
No. 2021-06208 S.C.I. No. 247/21
06-29-2022
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Jeffrey Wynne, appellant.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant. Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Tammy J. Smiley and Kevin C. King of counsel), for respondent.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant.
Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Tammy J. Smiley and Kevin C. King of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P. COLLEEN D. DUFFY JOSEPH J. MALTESE WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert A. Schwartz, J.), rendered July 30, 2021, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal does not foreclose appellate review of his contention that the Supreme Court failed to conduct a proper inquiry into his postplea arrest prior to imposing an enhanced sentence (see People v Knee, 174 A.D.3d 646, 646; People v Cousar, 128 A.D.3d 716, 716). However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the inquiry conducted by the court was sufficient to determine that there was a legitimate basis for the defendant's postplea arrest, and thus satisfied the requirements of due process (see People v Perez, 140 A.D.3d 799, 799; People v Driscoll, 131 A.D.3d 766, 767; People v Walker, 5 A.D.3d 702, 703).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest. "The right to effective counsel ensures... the assistance of counsel that is 'conflict-free and singlemindedly devoted to the client's best interests'" (People v Berroa, 99 N.Y.2d 134, 139, quoting People v Longtin, 92 N.Y.2d 640, 644, cert denied 526 U.S. 1114). Accordingly, where, as here, a defendant makes a conflict-based claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court must determine, first, "whether there was a potential conflict of interest," and second, whether the defendant has shown that the conduct of the defense "was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest, or that the conflict operated on the representation" (People v Konstantinides, 14 N.Y.3d 1, 10 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Dollinger, 128 A.D.3d 1085, 1087). Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate either the existence of a conflict of interest or any prejudice as a result of the alleged conflict of interest (see People v Smart, 96 N.Y.2d 793, 795; People v Argentina, 27 A.D.3d 569, 570; cf. People v Ortiz, 76 N.Y.2d 652, 657).
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal does not extend to the imposition of the enhanced sentence because the Supreme Court did not inform the defendant of the maximum sentence which could be imposed if he failed to comply with the conditions of the plea until after he agreed to waive his right to appeal (see People v McNeil, 164 A.D.3d 608, 608; People v Saaverda, 132 A.D.3d 701, 702; see also People v Maracle, 19 N.Y.3d 925). Thus, the waiver does not preclude appellate review of his excessive sentence claim.
However, the enhanced sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
DILLON, J.P., DUFFY, MALTESE and FORD, JJ., concur.