PEOPLE v. HENDRIE (2025)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Keith Bruno, J.), rendered August 2, 2021, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal nuisance in the first degree.

Defendant was indicted and charged with criminal nuisance in the first degree.  The charge stemmed from a July 2020 incident wherein defendant allowed her apartment to be maintained as a gathering place for individuals engaged in the unlawful sale of controlled substances.  In March 2021, defendant pleaded guilty to the sole count in the indictment with the understanding that, although County Court was making no sentencing commitment, she could be sentenced to a prison term of 1/313 to 4 years.  When the parties appeared for sentencing in June 2021, County Court sua sponte adjourned the matter for an additional two months.  County Court denied defendant's subsequent request for a further adjournment and thereafter sentenced defendant to six months in jail followed by five years of probation.  This appeal ensued.¹

We affirm.  Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of her plea, as well her assertion that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel (to the extent that such claim impacts upon the voluntariness of her plea), are unpreserved for our review as defendant did not make an appropriate postallocution motion – despite having ample time to do so prior to sentencing (see People v. Leroux, 234 A.D.3d 1214, 1214–1215, 225 N.Y.S.3d 782 [3d Dept. 2025];  People v. Werner, 227 A.D.3d 1273, 1273, 212 N.Y.S.3d 459 [3d Dept. 2024]).  Further, upon reviewing the record, we are unpersuaded that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was triggered (see People v. Prime, 233 A.D.3d 1182, 1182–1183, 221 N.Y.S.3d 791 [3d Dept. 2024];  People v. Mehalick, 226 A.D.3d 1263, 1264, 210 N.Y.S.3d 331 [3d Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 928, 216 N.Y.S.3d 118, 240 N.E.3d 837 [2024]).  In any event, defendant's claims that County Court's recitation of her Boykin rights was deficient and that she was denied meaningful representation are belied by the record (see e.g. People v. Bailey, 224 A.D.3d 1044, 1045, 205 N.Y.S.3d 546 [3d Dept. 2024];  People v. Lafond, 189 A.D.3d 1824, 1826, 137 N.Y.S.3d 222 [3d Dept. 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1121, 146 N.Y.S.3d 193, 169 N.E.3d 551 [2021]).

As to the sentence imposed, we do not find that the split sentence was unduly harsh or severe (see CPL 470.15[6][b]).  To the extent that defendant contends that County Court's comments at sentencing and/or rejection of her request for a sentence of straight probation and community service evidenced bias, this argument is unpreserved for our review absent a timely objection (see People v. Casey, 214 A.D.3d 1121, 1123, 186 N.Y.S.3d 409 [3d Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 927, 192 N.Y.S.3d 505, 213 N.E.3d 647 [2023]) and, in any event, is unpersuasive.  Defendant's remaining arguments, to the extent not specifically addressed, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Following her release from jail, defendant was charged with violating the terms and conditions of her probation, and County Court revoked defendant's probation and imposed a term of imprisonment (People v. Hendrie, ––– A.D.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, 2025 WL 2797955 [3d Dept. 2025] [decided herewith]).

Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.

Pritzker, J.P., Lynch, Fisher and Mackey, JJ., concur.