From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rubio

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov 19, 2015
133 A.D.3d 1041 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

106621

11-19-2015

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Christopher RUBIO, Appellant.

Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant. James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Hannah Rose Prall of counsel), for respondent.


Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant.

James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Hannah Rose Prall of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

CLARK, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), rendered December 19, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

In September 2013, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of burglary in the second degree and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree in full satisfaction of a seven-count indictment upon his admission that he, acting in concert with another individual, entered a residence, stole five handguns and, thereafter, possessed a loaded handgun without permission or license to do so. In exchange for a sentence of imprisonment of not less than seven years but no more than 10 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision, defendant agreed to sign a separate and distinct waiver of appeal in open court. At sentencing, the People informed County Court that there was an insurance claim of $400 for damage to the homeowner's gun case and $2,400 for the stolen handguns. County Court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 10 years, followed by five years of postrelease supervision, and imposed $2,800 in restitution. Defendant appeals.

Initially, we reject defendant's assertion that County Court did not properly ensure that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal. A review of the plea minutes reveals that County Court explained to defendant that he was waiving his right to appeal, that defendant explicitly waived his appeal rights without qualification during the allocution and that he was advised by the court that the appeal waiver was separate and distinct from those rights that he forfeited by his guilty plea (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 2006; People v. Spellicy, 123 A.D.3d 1228, 1229, 998 N.Y.S.2d 519 2014, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 992, 10 N.Y.S.3d 535, 32 N.E.3d 972 2015 ). Defendant also executed a written appeal waiver, which adequately described the scope of the appellate rights waived and which included defendant's acknowledgment that he was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waiving those rights after having been given sufficient time to discuss the consequences of the waiver with counsel (see People v. Tyler, 130 A.D.3d 1383, 1384, 14 N.Y.S.3d 570 2015; People v. Turner, 126 A.D.3d 1228, 1229, 5 N.Y.S.3d 612 2015 ). Consequently, the valid waiver precludes review of his challenge to the sentence as harsh and excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Jackson, 129 A.D.3d 1342, 1342, 10 N.Y.S.3d 368 2015 ).

Next, defendant argues that, because the plea bargain did not include restitution, County Court erred in ordering restitution and in failing to conduct a restitution hearing. Preliminarily, under the circumstances presented, we note that neither defendant's appeal waiver (see People v. Skerritt, 128 A.D.3d 1110, 1111, 8 N.Y.S.3d 709 2015; People v. Culcleasure, 75 A.D.3d 832, 832, 905 N.Y.S.2d 682 2010; People v. Thomas, 71 A.D.3d 1231, 1232, 896 N.Y.S.2d 264 2010, lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 893, 903 N.Y.S.2d 781, 929 N.E.2d 1016 2010; People v. Travis, 64 A.D.3d 808, 808, 882 N.Y.S.2d 530 2009 ) nor his failure to preserve this issue through an objection at sentencing (see People v. Culcleasure, 75 A.D.3d at 832, 905 N.Y.S.2d 682; People v. McDowell, 56 A.D.3d 955, 956, 868 N.Y.S.2d 779 2008; People v. Snyder, 23 A.D.3d 761, 762–763, 803 N.Y.S.2d 779 2005 ) is fatal to the claim. Turning to the merits, “[w]here ... a plea agreement does not include mention of restitution, a defendant must be given the opportunity to either withdraw his [or her] plea or accept the greater sentence of restitution” (People v. Snyder, 23 A.D.3d at 762, 803 N.Y.S.2d 779 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. McDowell, 56 A.D.3d at 956, 868 N.Y.S.2d 779). Here, a review of the plea colloquy and the sentencing minutes reveals that no mention of restitution was made until the sentence was pronounced, and there is also no evidence in the record to substantiate the amount of restitution requested by the People and awarded by the court (see Penal Law § 60.272; People v. Stevens, 80 A.D.3d 791, 792, 914 N.Y.S.2d 412 2011, lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 900, 926 N.Y.S.2d 35, 949 N.E.2d 983 2011; People v. Travis, 64 A.D.3d at 808–809, 882 N.Y.S.2d 530). Indeed, defendant was first made aware that restitution would be imposed at sentencing when the People informed County Court that the victim received insurance proceeds in the amount of $400 for damage to his firearm cabinet and $2,400 for his stolen firearms. Accordingly, in light of County Court's failure to afford defendant the opportunity to either withdraw his plea or accept the enhanced sentence of restitution, this matter must be remitted for that purpose (see People v. Gantt, 63 A.D.3d 1379, 1380, 881 N.Y.S.2d 224 2009; People v. McDowell, 56 A.D.3d at 956, 868 N.Y.S.2d 779). Alternatively, the court may impose the sentence that was promised in the plea agreement (see People v. Gantt, 63 A.D.3d at 1380, 881 N.Y.S.2d 224; People v. Snyder, 23 A.D.3d at 763, 803 N.Y.S.2d 779). In the event that restitution is ordered, defendant should be offered the opportunity of a hearing as to the appropriate amount (see People v. Gantt, 63 A.D.3d at 1380, 881 N.Y.S.2d 224; People v. Sawyer, 55 A.D.3d 949, 951–952, 865 N.Y.S.2d 378 2008 ).

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; matter remitted to the County Court of Sullivan County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision; and, as so modified, affirmed.

McCARTHY, J.P., ROSE and DEVINE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rubio

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov 19, 2015
133 A.D.3d 1041 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

People v. Rubio

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER RUBIO…

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

Date published: Nov 19, 2015

Citations

133 A.D.3d 1041 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
20 N.Y.S.3d 666
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 8468

Citing Cases

People v. Dunkelberger

We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that the waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. The record…

People v. Sommers

Contrary to defendant's contention, he validly waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. County…