| People v Miller |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 01537 [82 AD3d 1278] |
| March 3, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v WilliamJames Miller Jr., Appellant. |
—[*1] Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.),rendered September 12, 2008, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes ofmurder in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree.
For several months during 2007, defendant stole money from the victim, his elderly andinfirm father. Upon being confronted by the victim in September 2007 about the pilfered funds,defendant strangled him and then left his body in the victim's home. Police discovered thevictim's decomposing body in October 2007 and defendant eventually executed a detailed writtenconfession. He was indicted on charges of murder in the second degree and grand larceny in thethird degree. After his suppression motion was denied, defendant agreed to plead guilty to bothcounts in exchange for a sentence of 20 years to life on the murder count and a concurrent termfor the grand larceny count. Consistent with the agreement, he was sentenced to concurrentprison terms of 20 years to life for murder and 3½ to 7 years for grand larceny. CountyCourt also directed defendant to pay restitution of $14,250.25 to the victim's estate, and issuedorders of protection for the victim's family members who had requested such orders. Defendantappeals.
We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea was not preserved since hedid not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Glynn, 73 AD3d1290, 1291 [2010]; People vLopez, 52 AD3d 852, 852-853 [2008]). Contrary [*2]tohis contention, the exception to this preservation requirement was not established since review ofthe plea colloquy fails to establish that his recitation of the facts negated an essential element ofthe crime (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Kilgore, 45 AD3d 886,887 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 767 [2008]). His further argument that he was notinformed of the maximum potential sentence is contradicted by the record and, in any event,defendant received the sentence he had been promised (see People v Grant, 294 AD2d671, 672-673 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 730 [2002]).
Defendant asserts that his motion to suppress his statements to police should have beengranted. We cannot agree. The record supports the finding that defendant was not in custody and,in any event, he was fully apprised of his Miranda rights, waived those rights and made avoluntary statement (see People v Doherty, 305 AD2d 867, 867 [2003], lv denied100 NY2d 580 [2003]).
Lastly, we consider defendant's contention that his sentence was harsh and excessive. Absentthe plea deal, defendant faced a potentially longer minimum sentence for murder (seePenal Law § 70.00), as well as a consecutive sentence for grand larceny (see e.g.People v Mileto, 290 AD2d 877, 880 [2002], lv denied 97 NY2d 758 [2002]). Thesentence he received complied with the plea agreement, and the record reveals neither an abuseof discretion by County Court nor extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in theinterest of justice (see People vKaszubinski, 55 AD3d 1133, 1137 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 855 [2009]; People v Clapper, 51 AD3d 1336,1337 [2008]). We note that defendant did not request a hearing or contest the amount ofrestitution at sentencing (see People vWilliams, 28 AD3d 1005, 1011 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 819 [2006]), and theamount imposed was the same that the People had stated, prior to defendant's plea allocution,that they would be seeking. The protective orders regarding the victim's family members wereproperly issued (see People vShampine, 31 AD3d 1163, 1164 [2006]).
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.