| People v Colon |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 07527 [122 AD3d 956] |
| November 6, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vMaurice J. Colon, Appellant. |
Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant.
James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Katy Schlichtman of counsel), forrespondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda,J.), rendered December 20, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Defendant was charged in a seven-count indictment with a multitude of drug-relatedcrimes following a routine traffic stop in which his vehicle was searched and variouscontrolled substances were found. In October 2011, he pleaded guilty to criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree in satisfaction of the indictment.Under the terms of the plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal and was to besentenced as a second felony offender to three years in prison to be followed by threeyears of postrelease supervision. In addition, it was agreed that defendant would bereleased to a drug treatment program following the entry of his guilty plea and thatsentencing would occur three months later, at which time he would be incarcerated withthe potential for admission to a diversionary program.
Defendant was released and entered a drug treatment program, but was arrested anddetained on federal charges prior to sentencing. During this time, he moved to terminatethe services of the attorney who represented him in connection with his guilty plea. InJuly 2012, County Court granted the motion and assigned new counsel. Thereafter,defendant, through new counsel, moved to withdraw his guilty plea. County Courtsummarily denied the motion and [*2]sentenceddefendant to the agreed-upon sentence, to run concurrently to the sentence imposed onthe federal charges. Defendant now appeals.
Defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying his motion towithdraw his guilty plea. Specifically, he asserts that he felt pressured into entering theplea because his counsel did not endorse his suggested defense strategy of seeking tosuppress evidence recovered from his vehicle and he pleaded guilty based upon counsel'srecommendation without fully understanding the consequences of his plea. Insofar as thisclaim implicates the voluntariness of defendant's plea, it is not precluded by his waiver ofthe right to appeal and has been preserved by his motion to withdraw his plea (see People v McGowan, 117AD3d 1202, 1202 [2014]; People v Torres, 117 AD3d 1497, 1498 [2014], lvdenied 24 NY3d 965 [2014]). Nevertheless, we find it to be without merit. Duringthe plea colloquy, defendant indicated that he understood the rights that he was waivingas explained to him by his attorney and was satisfied with his attorney's services. Hefurther stated, unequivocally, that he was not under the influence of any medication thatwould affect his ability to understand the proceedings and was not forced, threatened orcoerced into entering his guilty plea. He also freely admitted to engaging in the conductconstituting the crime at issue. Our review of the record does not reveal that defendant'splea was the product of coercion (see e.g. People v Wren, 119 AD3d 1291, 1292 [2014]; People v O'Neill, 116 AD3d1240, 1241 [2014]; Peoplev Morey, 110 AD3d 1378, 1379 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 965[2014]). Rather, his claim that he was pressured into entering the plea "amounts to thetype of 'situational coercion' faced by many defendants offered a plea deal, and it doesnot undermine the voluntariness of [defendant's] guilty plea" (People v Morey,110 AD3d at 1379, quoting People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 8 [1989]). Therefore,we find that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant'smotion.
Stein, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.