People v Haines |
2017 NY Slip Op 07013 [154 AD3d 1017] |
October 5, 2017 |
Appellate Division, Third Department |
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau
pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
As corrected through Wednesday, November 29, 2017 |
[*1]
The People of the State of New York,
Respondent, v Ryan Haines, Appellant. |
Donnial K. Hinds, Albany, for appellant.
James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Richard K. Caister Jr. of counsel), for
respondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.),
rendered January 7, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in
the second degree.
Defendant was arrested for unlawfully entering a residence and stealing approximately
$7,000. After executing a waiver of indictment and a detailed, written waiver of appeal,
defendant orally waived his right to appeal and pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree as
charged in a superior court information. The plea agreement provided that defendant would
receive a prison sentence of 61/2 years followed by five years of postrelease
supervision. As part of the plea agreement, the People promised that if defendant made
restitution in the amount of $2,000 prior to sentencing, they would recommend a prison sentence
of five years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant failed to make any
restitution payments and, consistent with the plea agreement, County Court imposed, among
other things, a prison sentence of 61/2 years followed by five years of postrelease
supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's due process claim that County Court should not have imposed the
agreed-upon 61/2-year prison term without first conducting an indigency hearing,
as well as his claim that such sentence was harsh and excessive, are precluded by his
unchallenged—and, in any event, valid—appeal waiver (see People v Lyman, 119 AD3d
968, 969-970 [2014], lv denied 27 NY3d 1153 [2016]; People v Long, 117 AD3d 1326,
1326-1327 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d [*2]1003 [2014]).
Moreover, by not bringing his due process claim to the attention of the court at the time of
sentencing or making a motion to withdraw his plea, defendant failed to preserve his claim for
our review (see People v Rushlow,
137 AD3d 1482, 1483 [2016]; People v Bassoff, 51 AD3d 682, 683 [2008], lv denied 11
NY3d 734 [2008]).
Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is
affirmed.