Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Calvin BUTLER, Defendant–Appellant.
Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31), and he appeals from the resentence on that conviction. Defendant contends that he raised various possible defenses during the plea colloquy and thus that County Court erred in failing to conduct a sufficient inquiry to ensure that the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. That contention is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground (see People v. Davis, 37 A.D.3d 1179, 1179, 829 N.Y.S.2d 791, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 983, 838 N.Y.S.2d 487, 869 N.E.2d 663; People v. Swank, 278 A.D.2d 861, 861, 717 N.Y.S.2d 438, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 807, 726 N.Y.S.2d 385, 750 N.E.2d 87; see also People v. Simpson, 19 A.D.3d 945, 797 N.Y.S.2d 322), and this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 because nothing in the plea allocution calls into question the voluntariness of the plea or casts “significant doubt” upon defendant's guilt (People v. Lewandowski, 82 A.D.3d 1602, 1602, 919 N.Y.S.2d 623; see Swank, 278 A.D.2d at 861, 717 N.Y.S.2d 438). In any event, there is no merit to defendant's contention.
We reject the further contention of defendant that his absence from a pretrial conference deprived him of the right to be present at a material stage of the criminal proceeding. Where a proceeding “involves only questions of law or procedure,” a defendant's presence is not required (People v. Rodriguez, 85 N.Y.2d 586, 591, 627 N.Y.S.2d 292, 650 N.E.2d 1293; see People v. Levy, 52 A.D.3d 1025, 1028, 859 N.Y.S.2d 527; People v. Afrika, 13 A.D.3d 1218, 1222, 787 N.Y.S.2d 774, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 827, 796 N.Y.S.2d 582, 829 N.E.2d 675). Here, we conclude that defendant did not have a right to be present at the conference because “the subject legal discussion did not implicate his peculiar factual knowledge or otherwise present the potential for his meaningful participation” (People v. Fabricio, 3 N.Y.3d 402, 406, 787 N.Y.S.2d 219, 820 N.E.2d 863; see People v. Robinson, 28 A.D.3d 1126, 1128, 814 N.Y.S.2d 418, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 794, 821 N.Y.S.2d 824, 854 N.E.2d 1288; People v. Houk, 222 A.D.2d 1074, 1075, 636 N.Y.S.2d 237).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the People failed to comply with the procedural requirements of CPL 400.21 when he was resentenced as a second felony drug offender (see People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636, 637, 467 N.Y.S.2d 355, 454 N.E.2d 938; People v. Mateo, 53 A.D.3d 1111, 1112, 861 N.Y.S.2d 904, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 791, 866 N.Y.S.2d 617, 896 N.E.2d 103; People v. Beu, 24 A.D.3d 1257, 805 N.Y.S.2d 885, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 809, 812 N.Y.S.2d 449, 845 N.E.2d 1280). In any event, defendant waived strict compliance with that statute by admitting the prior felony conviction in open court (see People v. Perez, 85 A.D.3d 1538, 1541, 924 N.Y.S.2d 704; People v. Vega, 49 A.D.3d 1185, 1186, 852 N.Y.S.2d 910, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 965, 863 N.Y.S.2d 149, 893 N.E.2d 455). Defendant's further contention that he does not qualify as a second felony offender pursuant to Penal Law § 70.06 need not be preserved for our review and thus is properly before us (see People v. Samms, 95 N.Y.2d 52, 56–57, 710 N.Y.S.2d 310, 731 N.E.2d 1118; People v. Ramos, 45 A.D.3d 702, 703, 850 N.Y.S.2d 107, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 770, 854 N.Y.S.2d 332, 883 N.E.2d 1267). We conclude, however, that it is without merit. Although defendant's sentence upon the prior felony conviction was imposed more than 10 years before the commission of the present felony, the 10–year period is extended by any period of time during which he was incarcerated (see § 70.06[1][b][iv], [v] ), and we therefore conclude that defendant was properly resentenced as a second felony drug offender.
It is hereby ORDERED that the resentence so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 08, 2012
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)