People v Hatch

2018 NY Slip Op 06595 [165 AD3d 1321]

October 4, 2018

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, November 28, 2018

[*1]

The People of the State of New York,Appellant, v Lynn E. Hatch, Respondent.

John A. Cirando, Syracuse, for appellant.

William G. Gabor, District Attorney, Wampsville (Elizabeth S. Healy of counsel), forrespondent.

Aarons, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Madison County (O'Sullivan, J.),rendered August 1, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminalsexual act in the second degree (two counts).

Defendant was indicted and charged with two counts of criminal sexual act in the seconddegree. The charges stemmed from two instances of inappropriate sexual contact—one inOctober 2015 and the other in December 2015—between defendant and a 19-year-olddevelopmentally disabled man. Defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to the entire indictment withthe understanding that there would be no sentencing commitment. County Court thereaftersentenced defendant to prison terms of 31/2 years for each conviction followed bya period of postrelease supervision, the sentences to run consecutively. This appeal by defendantensued.

We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness and factual sufficiency of his guiltyplea is unpreserved for our review absent evidence of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Muller, 159 AD3d1232, 1232 [2018]; People vBailey, 158 AD3d 948, 948 [2018]; People v Hankerson, 147 AD3d 1153, 1153 [2017], lvdenied 29 NY3d 998 [2017]). Further, "inasmuch as defendant did not make any statementsduring the course of the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt or otherwise called intoquestion the voluntariness of his plea, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement isinapplicable" (People v White, 156AD3d 1249, 1250 [2017], lv denied 31 NY3d 988 [2018]; see People v Larock, 139 AD3d1241, 1242 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 932 [2016]; People v Cruz, 104 AD3d 1022,1023 [2013]). Finally, a review of the sentencing minutes confirms that County Court took intoconsideration the nature of the crime and other relevant sentencing factors, including defendant'sprior criminal history and professed remorse, and we find no extraordinary circumstances orabuse of discretion [*2]warranting a reduction of the sentenceimposed in the interest of justice (seePeople v Tetreault, 131 AD3d 1327, 1328 [2015]; People v Harden, 6 AD3d 987, 987-988 [2004]).

McCarthy, J.P., Devine, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.