PEOPLE v. WILLETTS (2025)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (James A. Murphy III, J.), rendered October 4, 2021, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree.

Defendant was charged in a 37–count indictment with various sex crimes spanning several years.  He later moved to suppress certain of his statements to law enforcement, and a suppression hearing was held before a Judicial Hearing Officer, who recommended denying the motion.  Prior to County Court's determination on the recommendation, defendant pleaded guilty to course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree in full satisfaction of the indictment, as well as another pending charge, and waived his right to appeal.  County Court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 16 years, to be followed by 20 years of postrelease supervision.  Defendant appeals.¹

We affirm.  Defendant's arguments related to his motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement are precluded by his unchallenged appeal waiver in addition to his guilty plea that was entered prior to County Court rendering a decision on his motion (see People v. Tetreault, 152 A.D.3d 1081, 1082, 60 N.Y.S.3d 540 [3d Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 984, 67 N.Y.S.3d 586, 89 N.E.3d 1266 [2017];  People v. Morton, 84 A.D.3d 1507, 1507, 922 N.Y.S.2d 819 [3d Dept. 2011], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 884, 939 N.Y.S.2d 754, 963 N.E.2d 131 [2012]).  Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel survives his appeal waiver – insofar as it implicates the voluntariness of his plea – but is unpreserved for review, as the record does not reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion, and the exception to the preservation rule has not been implicated (see People v. Hinds, 217 A.D.3d 1138, 1140, 191 N.Y.S.3d 533 [3d Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 951, 195 N.Y.S.3d 672, 217 N.E.3d 693 [2023];  People v. Morehouse, 183 A.D.3d 1180, 1183, 124 N.Y.S.3d 741 [3d Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1068, 129 N.Y.S.3d 386, 152 N.E.3d 1187 [2020]).  “To the extent that defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims involve matters outside of the record, they are more properly addressed in the context of a CPL article 440 motion” (People v. Faublas, 216 A.D.3d 1358, 1359, 189 N.Y.S.3d 828 [3d Dept. 2023] [citations omitted], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 934, 194 N.Y.S.3d 756, 215 N.E.3d 1197 [2023];  see People v. Ulmer, 226 A.D.3d 1259, 1260, 210 N.Y.S.3d 329 [3d Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 930, 216 N.Y.S.3d 95, 240 N.E.3d 814 [2024]).  Finally, defendant's assertion that the imposed sentence is harsh and excessive is precluded by his unchallenged appeal waiver (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006];  People v. Agueda, 202 A.D.3d 1153, 1154, 160 N.Y.S.3d 489 [3d Dept. 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1031, 169 N.Y.S.3d 209, 189 N.E.3d 316 [2022]).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although defendant's notice of appeal sets forth an incorrect date of the judgment of conviction, we exercise our discretion to overlook this inaccuracy and treat the notice of appeal as valid (see CPL 460.10[6]).

Garry, P.J.

Lynch, Fisher, Powers and Mackey, JJ., concur.