Opinion
04-18-2024
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Paul J. PIKE, Appellant
Matthew E. Minniefield, Albany, for appellant. Karen A. Heggen, District Attorney, Ballston Spa (Jesse L. Ashdown of counsel), for respondent.
Matthew E. Minniefield, Albany, for appellant.
Karen A. Heggen, District Attorney, Ballston Spa (Jesse L. Ashdown of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Aarons, J.P., Lynch, Ceresia, McShan and Powers, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (James A. Murphy III, J.), rendered February 8, 2021, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of vehicular assault in the first degree.
Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted pursuant to a superior court information charging him with one count of vehicular assault in the first degree. The charges stemmed from an incident wherein defendant, while under the influence of various drugs, operated his motor vehicle in a manner that caused serious physical injuries to his then-seven-year-old passenger. Defendant was offered the opportunity to plead guilty to the charged crime with the understanding that he would be sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of 3 to 6 years. The plea agreement, which also satisfied other unrelated traffic offenses, required defendant to waive his right to appeal. Defendant pleaded guilty in conformity with the plea agreement, and County Court imposed the agreed-upon term of imprisonment. This appeal ensued.
[1, 2] The People concede - and our review of the record confirms - that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. The written waiver contained overbroad and inaccurate language, and County Court’s brief oral colloquy was insufficient to "cure the deficiencies in the written waiver or otherwise convey to defendant that some appellate review survived" (People v. Loya, 215 A.D.3d 1181, 1182, 187 N.Y.S.3d 444 [3d Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 929, 192 N.Y.S.3d 502, 213 N.E.3d 644 [2023]; see People v. Lorman, 214 A.D.3d 1210, 1210, 183 N.Y.S.3d 872 [3d Dept. 2023]). In light of the invalid waiver, defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed is not precluded (see People v. Kimball, 213 A.D.3d 1028, 1029, 183 N.Y.S.3d 198 [3d Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 929, 192 N.Y.S.3d 518, 213 N.E.3d 661 [2023]). That said, upon reviewing the record as a whole, and taking into consideration defendant’s criminal history and the seriousness of the underlying offense, we do not find the agreed-upon sentence to be unduly harsh or severe (see CPL 470.15[6][b]; People v. Coler, 214 A.D.3d 1207, 1207, 185 N.Y.S.3d 834 [3d Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 1091, 204 N.Y.S.3d 798, 228 N.E.3d 612 [2024]) and decline defendant’s invitation to reduce it in the interest of justice.
Aarons, J.P., Lynch, Ceresia, McShan and Powers, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.