People v Hawkins
2019 NY Slip Op 07959 [177 AD3d 1035]
November 7, 2019
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 1, 2020


[*1]
 The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Matthew Hawkins, Appellant.

Tara B. Wells, Albany, for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), forrespondent.

Clark, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County(Sypniewski, J.), rendered August 10, 2017, convicting defendant upon his plea of guiltyof the crimes of burglary in the second degree and burglary in the third degree.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant waived indictment and entered aplea of guilty to burglary in the second and third degrees, as charged in a superior courtinformation. Defendant also orally waived his right to appeal and signed a written waiverof appeal in open court. In accordance with the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced,as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison sentences, the maximum of which was10 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision, and ordered to pay restitution.Defendant appeals.

Defendant's unchallenged oral and written waiver of appeal precludes his claims ofineffective assistance of counsel except to the extent that the claims impacted upon thevoluntariness of his guilty plea (see People v Clapper, 133 AD3d 1037, 1038 [2015], lvdenied 27 NY3d 995 [2016]). However, defendant failed to preserve such claims forour review through an appropriate postallocution motion to withdraw his guilty plea,despite ample opportunity to do so prior to sentencing (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Horton, 173 AD3d1342, 1343-1344 [2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 932 [2019]; People v Prince, 170 AD3d1380, 1381-1382 [2019]). Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservationrequirement is inapplicable, as defendant made no statements that were inconsistent withhis guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of his guilty plea (see People v Pastor, 28 NY3d1089, 1090-1091 [2016]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988];People v Prince, 170 AD3d at 1382).

Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.