PEOPLE v. JACOBS (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Calendar Date:  September 17, 2026

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Joseph Cawley, J.), rendered October 31, 2022, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In July 2019, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and was sentenced to five years of probation.  A little over a year later, defendant was charged with violating her probation by, among other things, absconding from supervision.  Upon admitting to the violation, defendant was restored to probation following a three-month term of incarceration.  In August 2021, defendant was again charged with violating probation by absconding from supervision.  It was initially proposed that defendant be resentenced to a nine-month term of incarceration if she admitted to the probation violation.  However, following a written submission, as well as an oral application, from defendant's counsel detailing defendant's history as a survivor of domestic violence, the offered term of incarceration was shortened to six months.  Defendant then waived a hearing, admitted to the violation and was so resentenced.  Defendant appeals.

Defendant's sole contention is that her admission of guilt was not voluntary.  While this argument generally requires preservation by way of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Brunell, 247 AD3d 1354, 1354–1355 [3d Dept 2026];  People v. Hendrie, 242 AD3d 1262, 1263 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1028 [2025] ), given that the imposition of defendant's sentence occurred at the same proceeding wherein she admitted to the probation violation, she “did not have the practical ability to make a postallocution motion and [we conclude] that [her] claims are, therefore, reviewable” (People v. Miazga, 171 AD3d 1358, 1359 [3d Dept 2019];  see People v. Caporaso, 248 AD3d 941, 942 [2d Dept 2026], lv denied 45 NY3d 1036 [2026] ).

Still, we find no reason to vacate defendant's guilty plea.  Defendant argues that because of her status as a domestic violence survivor with its attendant trauma, she was unable to comprehend the nature of her admission and instead simply acquiesced to “whatever [County C]ourt demanded” without being truly informed.  This claim, however, is made in conclusory fashion, without any record support.  Furthermore, our review of the plea minutes reveals that defendant advised the court that she had not been forced or coerced to accept the plea bargain and stated that she was doing so freely and voluntarily after consulting with her attorney (see People v. Douglas, 250 AD3d 1356, 1359 [3d Dept 2026] ).  Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that defendant's admission was knowing, voluntary and intelligent, and contrary to her claim this was not undermined by the fact that she gave one-word responses to some of the court's questions (see People v. Persaud, 212 AD3d 654, 655 [2d Dept 2023], lv denied 39 NY3d 1156 [2023];  see also People v. Terry, 244 AD3d 1378, 1379 [3d Dept 2025], lv. denied 45 NY3d 974 [2026] ).

Clark, J.P., McShan, Powers and Ryba, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Ceresia, J.