From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Coleman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 2005
23 A.D.3d 1033 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

KA 03-01779.

November 10, 2005.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L. D'Amico, J.), rendered April 3, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and robbery in the third degree.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT B. HALLBORG, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK J. CLARK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (SHAWN P. HENNESSY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Present: Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Pine and Hayes, JJ.


It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the sentence imposed on robbery in the third degree and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Erie County Court for resentencing on count three of the indictment.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of sodomy in the first degree (Penal Law former § 130.50 [1]), sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65 [1]), and robbery in the third degree (§ 160.05). Defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because "there is reason to believe that [he] did not understand the question County Court was asking him." Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered ( see People v. Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 736; People v. Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911; People v. Brown, 281 AD2d 962, lv denied 96 NY2d 899). Nevertheless, the waiver by defendant of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the legality of the sentence ( see People v. Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 9). Here, the certificate of conviction and sentencing minutes establish that defendant was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender on the conviction of robbery in the third degree. That sentence is illegal, however, because the crime of robbery in the third degree is not a violent felony offense ( see Penal Law § 70.02 [c]; People v. Harris, 304 AD2d 355, 356, lv denied 100 NY2d 582; People v. Malone, 102 AD2d 737). Thus, we modify the judgment by vacating the sentence imposed on robbery in the third degree, and we remit the matter to County Court for resentencing on count three of the indictment.

Finally, the waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence ( see Hidalgo, 91 NY2d at 737). In any event, we conclude that the sentence with respect to sodomy and sexual abuse is not unduly harsh or severe.


Summaries of

People v. Coleman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 2005
23 A.D.3d 1033 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

People v. Coleman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LAMONT COLEMAN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Nov 10, 2005

Citations

23 A.D.3d 1033 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 8395
803 N.Y.S.2d 851

Citing Cases

People v. Ramos

Defendant asserts that County Court erred in imposing a determinate prison sentence of four years for his…

People v. Christopher

We conclude, however, that the sentence imposed pursuant to the plea agreement is illegal. A challenge to the…