From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Caufield

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Mar 27, 2015
126 A.D.3d 1542 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

413 KA 13-00699

03-27-2015

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Christopher J. CAUFIELD, Defendant–Appellant.

Michael G. Cianfarano, Oswego, for Defendant–Appellant. Gregory S. Oakes, District Attorney, Oswego (Courtney E. Pettit of Counsel), for Respondent.


Michael G. Cianfarano, Oswego, for Defendant–Appellant.

Gregory S. Oakes, District Attorney, Oswego (Courtney E. Pettit of Counsel), for Respondent.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30[4] ), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is not valid. We agree. “[T]he minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v. Box, 96 A.D.3d 1570, 1571, 946 N.Y.S.2d 525, lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 1024, 953 N.Y.S.2d 557, 978 N.E.2d 109 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Moreover, the court “conflated the waiver of the right to appeal with the rights forfeited by defendant based on his guilty plea” (People v. Tate, 83 A.D.3d 1467, 1467, 919 N.Y.S.2d 919 ; cf. People v. Boatman, 110 A.D.3d 1463, 1463, 972 N.Y.S.2d 780, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1039, 981 N.Y.S.2d 372, 4 N.E.3d 384 ). Nevertheless, we affirm. Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ). In any event, that challenge is without merit because “there is no requirement that defendant recite the facts underlying the crime to which he is pleading guilty” (People v. Bailey, 49 A.D.3d 1258, 1259, 852 N.Y.S.2d 892, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 932, 862 N.Y.S.2d 338, 892 N.E.2d 404 ; see People v. Darling, 125 A.D.3d 1279, 1280, 1 N.Y.S.3d 717 ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

SMITH, J.P., VALENTINO, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Caufield

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Mar 27, 2015
126 A.D.3d 1542 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

People v. Caufield

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Christopher J…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 27, 2015

Citations

126 A.D.3d 1542 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
126 A.D.3d 1542
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 2650

Citing Cases

People v. Martinez

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant…

People v. Martinez

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant…