| People v Skyers |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 05233 [173 AD3d 1565] |
| June 27, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lennox Skyers, Appellant. |
Law Office of William J. Reddy, New City (William J. Reddy of counsel), for appellant.
Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Jeffrey C. Kehm of counsel), forrespondent.
Mulvey, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Ryan, J.),rendered April 4, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in thefirst degree (two counts).
Defendant, who was on probation at the time that the underlying offenses were committed,was charged in a 13-count indictment with various crimes including, insofar as is relevant here,two counts of assault in the first degree. Approximately three weeks prior to the scheduled trial,the People offered defendant an opportunity to plead guilty to two counts of assault in the firstdegree with a recommendation that he be sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrentprison terms of 13 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant initiallyacquiesced to the People's offer but, midway through his plea allocution, defendant asserted thathe was not guilty and that "[e]verything was an accident," prompting County Court to adjourn thematter pending trial.
Defendant reappeared in court the following day—once again indicating that hewished to go forward with the proposed plea agreement, which also would resolve defendant'sprobation violation. After assuring County Court that he had been afforded sufficient time toconfer with counsel, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of assault in the first degree, and thematter was adjourned for sentencing. When defendant returned to court approximately twomonths later and was given an opportunity to make a statement prior to sentencing, defendantexpressed remorse for his crimes, stating that, on the day in question, he had "overdosed on somemedications while [he] was intoxicated," he "wasn't in [his] right state of mind," he "wasn't tryingto hurt anyone" and he "honestly [did not] recall what happened because after [he] took themedications [he] blacked out." County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to the contemplatedconcurrent terms of imprisonment, and this appeal ensued.
The statements made by defendant at sentencing, which raised the possibility of anintoxication defense and called into question the intent element of assault in the first degree(see Penal Law § 120.10 [1]), were sufficient to trigger the narrowexception to the preservation requirement, thereby imposing a duty of further inquiry uponCounty Court "to ensure that defendant's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary" (People v Gresham, 151 AD3d1175, 1177 [2017]; see People vBrassard, 166 AD3d 1312, 1313 [2018]; People v Miller, 162 AD3d 1231, 1232 [2018], lv denied 32NY3d 939 [2018]; People v Chin,160 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2018]). To be sure, "there is no mandatory catechism required [at aplea or] on sentencing" (People v Gresham, 151 AD3d at 1177 [internal quotation marksand citations omitted]; see People vStutzman, 158 AD3d 1294, 1295 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1122 [2018]), and"defendant was not required to recite each element of the crime[ ] or provide a further factualrecitation, as his affirmative responses to County Court's questions established the elements ofthe crime[ ] charged" (People v Gresham, 151 AD3d at 1177 [internal quotation marksand citations omitted]). Similarly, defendant did not say anything during the course of the pleacolloquy that suggested a possible intoxication defense (see e.g. People v Hopper, 153 AD3d 1045, 1046-1047 [2017],lv denied 30 NY3d 1061 [2017]), and defendant's statements at sentencing contradictedhis sworn admissions during the plea colloquy (see e.g. People v Quell, 166 AD3d 1388, 1389 [2018], lvdenied 32 NY3d 1208 [2019]). However, "statements made by a defendant that negate anelement of the crime to which a plea has been entered, raise the possibility of a [particular]defense or otherwise suggest an involuntary plea require[ ] the trial court to then conduct afurther inquiry or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea" (People v Chin,160 AD3d at 1039 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Brassard,166 AD3d at 1313). County Court did not pursue either of those avenues here.
Although the People argue that defendant's comments were merely explanatory (see People v Wagoner, 30 AD3d629, 630 [2006]) or may be viewed simply as an attempt to elicit sympathy prior to theimposition of sentence (see People vMatos, 27 AD3d 485, 486 [2006]), we find that defendant's statements that he wasintoxicated, that he could not recall the underlying events and that he did not intend to hurtanyone were sufficient to warrant further inquiry by County Court—particularly in view ofthe initially-failed plea colloquy (see People v Brassard, 166 AD3d at 1313; People vChin, 160 AD3d at 1039-1040; People v Gresham, 151 AD3d at 1177-1178; compare People v Bailey, 158 AD3d948, 949 [2018]; People vMcKnight, 144 AD3d 1334, 1335 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1148 [2017];People v Wagoner, 30 AD3d at 630; People v Matos, 27 AD3d at 486).Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and this matter is remitted for furtherproceedings.
Lynch, J.P., Clark, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed,on the law, and matter remitted to the County Court of Clinton County for further proceedingsnot inconsistent with this Court's decision.