| People v Patnode |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01550 [60 AD3d 1109] |
| March 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark R.Patnode, Appellant. |
—[*1] Derek P. Champagne, District Attorney, Malone (Glenn MacNeill of counsel), forrespondent.
Kavanagh, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.),rendered December 10, 2007, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of sexualabuse in the first degree.
The victim, then nine years old, alleged that on eight separate occasions during the summerof 2006 defendant touched her private parts, exposed her to pornography and masturbated in herpresence. In February 2007, the victim reported the incidents to her mother who, in turn,contacted the State Police. After he was arrested, defendant was advised of his Mirandarights, waived them and provided two written inculpatory statements regarding his activities withthe victim. Defendant was ultimately charged with course of sexual conduct against a child in thesecond degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (eight counts) and endangering the welfare of achild. In October 2007, defendant pleaded guilty to one amended count of sexual abuse in thefirst degree in full satisfaction of all 10 charges contained in the indictment.[FN*]Defendant was sentenced to six years in prison, with three years of postrelease [*2]supervision. Defendant now appeals claiming that his plea was notknowingly, voluntarily and intelligently rendered, that he was denied the effective assistance ofcounsel and that the sentence was harsh and excessive. Unconvinced by any of defendant'sarguments, we now affirm.
The principal issues that defendant seeks to raise on this appeal—that his guilty pleawas not properly entered and that he was deprived of the effective assistance ofcounsel—have not been preserved for our review because defendant never moved towithdraw his guilty plea or vacate his judgment of conviction (see People v Nunez, 56 AD3d897, 898 [2008]; People vJeske, 55 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2008]; People v Sorey, 55 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2008]). Even if we were toconsider his claims regarding his plea, defendant's allocution contained "unequivocal affirmativeresponses to [County C]ourt's questions," an unambiguous declaration that he was guilty and atotal absence of any "statements negating his guilt" (People v Williams, 35 AD3d 971, 972 [2006], lv denied 8NY3d 928 [2007]; see People vJohnson, 54 AD3d 1133, 1133 [2008]). Moreover, when the plea was entered, acomprehensive exchange took place between defendant, his counsel, and County Court regardingthe details of the plea, as well as the sentencing options that existed under the plea agreement.During this exchange, defendant confirmed that his decision to plead guilty was made freely andnot the product of any threats or coercion. He acknowledged that he had a fair and fullopportunity to confer with counsel, was fully aware of all of the ramifications of entering theplea and that he was, in fact, guilty of the charge (see People v Smith, 56 AD3d 894, 895 [2008]). As such, theallocution established that defendant's guilty plea was freely, voluntarily and knowingly entered(see People v Johnson, 54 AD3d at 1133).
Defendant also claims that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to hiscounsel's failure to move to suppress the inculpatory statements attributed to him by the policeafter he was placed under arrest. As previously stated, this claim is unpreserved (see People v Sterling, 57 AD3d1110, 1112-1113 [2008]; People vRobles, 53 AD3d 686, 687 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 794 [2008]; People v Clark, 52 AD3d 951,952 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 831 [2008]). In any event, we note that, as a direct resultof counsel's efforts, defendant was the beneficiary of a plea bargain that served to dramaticallyreduce the potential penalty he could have received if convicted of all charges contained in theindictment. In addition, the plea was taken in full satisfaction not only of all the claims madeagainst defendant by the named victim, but also covered similar allegations that had been madeby five other individuals. In light of this advantageous plea secured by counsel, defendant wasnot deprived of meaningful representation (see People v Johnson, 54 AD3d at 1134;People v Robles, 53 AD3d at 687; People v Lopez, 52 AD3d 852, 853 [2008]).
Finally, given the nature of the crimes for which defendant stands convicted, we see no meritin his claim that the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive (see People v Stouten, 54 AD3d1100 [2008]; People v White,52 AD3d 950, 951 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 742 [2008]; People v Ogburn, 46 AD3d 1018,1019 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 769 [2008]).
Peters, J.P., Lahtinen and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Footnote *: As part of the plea agreement,the People promised that they would not prosecute defendant for any potential charges relating toclaims by five other individuals who made similar allegations against defendant, and also agreedthat they would not ask the Attorney General to seek civil confinement of defendant after hecompleted his sentence pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law.