PEOPLE v. HAYWOOD (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Robert Smith, J.), rendered December 1, 2022, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of rape in the third degree (three counts) and endangering the welfare of a child.

Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with three counts of rape in the third degree and one count of endangering the welfare of a child.  County Court agreed to sentence him to no more than eight years in prison, to be followed by no more than 10 years of postrelease supervision.  Defendant was warned that the sentence could be enhanced up to 12 years in prison if he did not appear for future court appearances or failed to cooperate with the Probation Department during the presentence investigation, including by not honestly answering their inquiries or giving “some song and dance [about] how [he was] not guilty of these charges.”  Defendant repeatedly failed to appear for sentencing, including when he was absent after finishing treatment for injuries he sustained in an accident earlier in the day and when he purportedly tested positive for COVID–19 at home and declined to appear despite being directed to do so.  He further contradicted his admissions during the plea colloquy in his presentence investigation interview by claiming, among other things, that he had not done anything with the victim and had been threatened by unspecified individuals to plead guilty.  At sentencing, County Court denied his application to withdraw his guilty plea and sentenced him to a total of nine years in prison, to be followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision.  Defendant appeals, solely challenging the imposition and severity of the enhanced sentence.

We affirm.  Defendant's procedural challenges to the imposition of an enhanced sentence are unpreserved because “the record does not reflect that defendant voiced any objection, requested a hearing or moved to withdraw his plea upon this ground” (People v. Davis, 199 A.D.3d 1123, 1125, 156 N.Y.S.3d 568 [3d Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1160, 160 N.Y.S.3d 692, 181 N.E.3d 1120 [2022]).  In any event, as the conditions imposed by County Court “did not contravene statutory provisions or public policy, and County Court informed defendant during the plea [proceeding] of the maximum potential sentence for noncompliance with the conditions, we cannot say that the court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence” given defendant's failure to dispute that he had violated them (People v. Fleming, 50 A.D.3d 1390, 1391, 855 N.Y.S.2d 765 [3d Dept. 2008];  see People v. Figgins, 87 N.Y.2d 840, 841, 637 N.Y.S.2d 684, 661 N.E.2d 156 [1995];  People v. Maclean, 226 A.D.3d 1178, 1181–1182, 209 N.Y.S.3d 213 [3d Dept. 2024], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 1019, 214 N.Y.S.3d 324, 237 N.E.3d 1263 [2024];  People v. Bouck, 153 A.D.3d 1522, 1523, 61 N.Y.S.3d 388 [3d Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1017, 70 N.Y.S.3d 450, 93 N.E.3d 1214 [2017]).  We do not perceive that sentence to be unduly harsh or severe (see People v. Wright, 149 A.D.3d 1417, 1418, 52 N.Y.S.3d 583 [3d Dept. 2017];  People v. Stocum, 143 A.D.3d 1160, 1163, 40 N.Y.S.3d 585 [3d Dept. 2016]).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Aarons, J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia, Mackey and Corcoran, JJ., concur.