PEOPLE v. WILLIAMSON (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Hyun Chin Kim, J.), rendered December 19, 2023, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion pursuant to CPL 220.60(3) to withdraw his plea of guilty, made after he had violated his plea agreement.  To the extent that the defendant contends that his plea of guilty was coerced by his mother, the Court of Appeals “has never recognized coercion by family members as a reason for withdrawing a guilty plea” (People v. Manor, 27 N.Y.3d 1012, 1014, 35 N.Y.S.3d 272, 54 N.E.3d 1143 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see People v. Lewis, 46 N.Y.2d 825, 826, 414 N.Y.S.2d 116, 386 N.E.2d 1084).  To the extent that the defendant contends that he pleaded guilty based on his attorney's misstatement to him that he faced a charge of attempted murder instead of robbery in the first degree, any such misstatement did not prejudice the defendant because both attempted murder and robbery in the first degree are class B violent felonies that carry the same possible sentences (see Penal Law § 70.02[1][a];  [3][a]).  The defendant's assertion of innocence was wholly unsubstantiated (see People v. Corines, 204 A.D.3d 827, 828, 166 N.Y.S.3d 260;  People v. Prunesti, 193 A.D.3d 984, 985, 142 N.Y.S.3d 835).

The County Court properly imposed an enhanced sentence upon the defendant after he violated his plea agreement by not cooperating with the Probation Department, not being truthful during an interview with the Probation Department, and getting rearrested for another offense (see People v. Valencia, 3 N.Y.3d 714, 715, 786 N.Y.S.2d 374, 819 N.E.2d 990;  People v. Hicks, 98 N.Y.2d 185, 189, 746 N.Y.S.2d 441, 774 N.E.2d 205;  People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702, 713, 594 N.Y.S.2d 683, 610 N.E.2d 356).  Contrary to the defendant's contention, there was a legitimate basis for his rearrest (see People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d at 713, 594 N.Y.S.2d 683, 610 N.E.2d 356).

The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal is valid and precludes appellate review of his contentions that the sentence imposed was excessive and constituted cruel and unusual punishment (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256–257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;  People v. Myke, 232 A.D.3d 913, 220 N.Y.S.3d 838).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.

LASALLE, P.J., FORD, VOUTSINAS and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.