PEOPLE v. STEINHOFF (2025)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Matthew Sypniewski, J.), rendered September 22, 2021, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of rape in the third degree (two counts).

Defendant was charged in a 12–count indictment with eight counts of rape in the third degree, three counts of criminal sexual act in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child.  Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of rape in the third degree and agreed to waive his right to appeal both orally and in writing.  Consistent with the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to consecutive 31/212-year prison terms, to be followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision.  Defendant appeals.

Since defendant raises no challenge as to the validity of his appeal waiver, any contention that the sentence was unduly harsh or severe is foreclosed (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006];  People v. Wheeler, 221 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 198 N.Y.S.3d 621 [3d Dept. 2023]).¹

Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea, which survives the appeal waiver, is unpreserved because defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before County Court (see People v. Bailey, 232 A.D.3d 1031, 1033, 222 N.Y.S.3d 721 [3d Dept. 2024], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 929, 229 N.Y.S.3d 95, 254 N.E.3d 639 [2025]).  Similarly, defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution is also unpreserved (see People v. Harrigan, 239 A.D.3d 1153, 1155, 236 N.Y.S.3d 419 [3d Dept. 2025];  People v. Snyder, 235 A.D.3d 1072, 1073, 226 N.Y.S.3d 698 [3d Dept. 2025]).  Moreover, defendant made no statements during the plea colloquy that negated an element of the crime or cast doubt on the voluntariness of the plea so as to trigger the narrow exception to the preservation rule (see People v. Williams, 27 N.Y.3d 212, 214, 32 N.Y.S.3d 17, 51 N.E.3d 528 [2016]);  People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988]).  To the extent that defendant's ineffective assistance claim impacts the voluntariness of the plea, it is also unpreserved in light of the lack of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. McCargo, 170 A.D.3d 1377, 1379, 96 N.Y.S.3d 389 [3d Dept. 2019];  People v. Rutigliano, 159 A.D.3d 1280, 1281, 73 N.Y.S.3d 674 [3d Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1121, 81 N.Y.S.3d 381, 106 N.E.3d 764 [2018]).  Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel predicated upon counsel's efforts at sentencing is likewise not preserved for our review (see People v. Newell, 271 A.D.2d 873, 874, 708 N.Y.S.2d 483 [3d Dept. 2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 837, 713 N.Y.S.2d 144, 735 N.E.2d 424 [2000]).  “In any event, in the context of a guilty plea, a defendant has been afforded meaningful representation when he or she receives an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt upon the apparent effectiveness of counsel and, were we to address this claim, we would find that defendant received meaningful representation [throughout the underlying proceedings and at sentencing]” (People v. Taylor, 144 A.D.3d 1317, 1319, 41 N.Y.S.3d 587 [3d Dept. 2016] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1151, 52 N.Y.S.3d 302, 74 N.E.3d 687 [2017];  see People v. Newell, 271 A.D.2d at 874, 708 N.Y.S.2d 483).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We recognize that the written waiver is the same waiver document deemed invalid in (People v. Appiah, 218 A.D.3d 1060, 195 N.Y.S.3d 153 [3d Dept. 2023], revd on other grounds 41 N.Y.3d 949, 950, 207 N.Y.S.3d 37, 230 N.E.3d 1101 [2025]).  The written waiver is overbroad in several respects, specifying that the waiver “marks[s] the end of [his] case” and precluding any request for collateral relief “in any state or federal court” (see People v. Bisono, 36 N.Y.3d 1013, 1017–1018, 140 N.Y.S.3d 433, 164 N.E.3d 239 [2020];  People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 565–566, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019]).  County Court's oral allocution advised defendant that certain appellate rights survive the waiver, but that brief explanation failed to cure the defects in the written waiver (see People v. Appiah, 218 A.D.3d at 1061, 195 N.Y.S.3d 153).  In any event, were we to review the issue, we would not find the agreed-upon sentence unduly harsh or severe.

Lynch, J.

Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.P., Ceresia, Fisher and McShan, JJ., concur.