PEOPLE v. TORRES (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Craig Stephen Brown, J.), rendered January 26, 2024, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

“Sentencing is a critical stage of the criminal proceeding and ․ must satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause” (People v. Owensford, 209 A.D.3d 766, 769, 176 N.Y.S.3d 126 [alteration and internal quotation marks omitted]).  “ ‘Due process ․ requires that, before imposing an enhanced sentence, the court conduct an inquiry sufficient for it to determine that the defendant indeed violated the plea condition’ ” (People v. Suero, 243 A.D.3d 926, ––––, 243 N.Y.S.3d 520, quoting People v. Guzman–Hernandez, 135 A.D.3d 957, 957, 23 N.Y.S.3d 582;  see People v. Valencia, 3 N.Y.3d 714, 715, 786 N.Y.S.2d 374, 819 N.E.2d 990;  People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702, 713, 594 N.Y.S.2d 683, 610 N.E.2d 356).  “A sentencing court faced with an allegation that a defendant violated a condition of a plea agreement must conduct an inquiry sufficient to satisfy itself that there is a legitimate basis for such a finding” (People v. Mays, 181 A.D.3d 874, 875, 119 N.Y.S.3d 883;  see People v. Fiammegta, 14 N.Y.3d 90, 98, 896 N.Y.S.2d 735, 923 N.E.2d 1123).  Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court's determination that the defendant violated the conditions of his plea agreement by violating the law was supported by sufficient reliable and accurate information (see People v. Mays, 181 A.D.3d at 875, 119 N.Y.S.3d 883;  People v. Turner, 158 A.D.3d 892, 893, 70 N.Y.S.3d 610).

The defendant's challenges to the plea conditions, the County Court's warnings during the plea allocution, and the admission of certain evidence during the Outley hearing are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970;  see also People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145).  “The [County] [C]ourt's colloquy followed, almost verbatim, the model colloquy for the waiver of the right to appeal drafted by the Unified Court System's Criminal Jury Instructions and Model Colloquy Committee, the use of which has been endorsed by this Court in (People v. Batista, 167 A.D.3d 69, 76–78, 86 N.Y.S.3d 492), and by the Court of Appeals in (People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d at 566–567, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970)” (People v. Patterson, 243 A.D.3d 810, ––––, 243 N.Y.S.3d 183).  “Moreover, any alleged ambiguity in the oral colloquy was cured by the detailed written waiver of the right to appeal” (People v. Patterson, 243 A.D.3d 810, ––––, 243 N.Y.S.3d 183).  The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;  People v. Batista, 167 A.D.3d at 75, 86 N.Y.S.3d 492).

CHAMBERS, J.P., VOUTSINAS, TAYLOR and HOM, JJ., concur.