JOE, QUINTRELL L., PEOPLE v ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    859/11
    KA 08-00219
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, AND FAHEY, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    QUINTRELL JOE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (CHRISTINE M. COOK OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITE
    OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County
    (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered August 31, 2007. The judgment
    convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession
    of a controlled substance in the second degree. The judgment was
    affirmed by order of this Court entered September 30, 2011 (87 AD3d
    1266), and defendant on December 16, 2011 was granted leave to appeal
    to the Court of Appeals from the order of this Court (18 NY3d 859),
    and the Court of Appeals on May 8, 2012 reversed the order and
    remitted the case to this Court for clarification of the basis of this
    Court’s decision (___ NY3d ___ [May 8, 2012]).
    Now, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals,
    It is hereby ORDERED that, upon remittitur from the Court of
    Appeals, the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: On a prior appeal (People v Joe, 87 AD3d 1266, revd
    ___ NY3d ___ [May 8, 2012]), we summarily affirmed the judgment
    convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance
    in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]). Defendant’s sole
    contention was that his sentence was unduly harsh and severe. In
    reversing our order, the Court of Appeals concluded that it was
    impermissible for this Court to affirm the judgment summarily “without
    indicating whether [we] relied on the waiver [of the right to appeal]
    or determined that the sentencing claim lacked merit” (Joe, ___ NY3d
    at ___). The Court remitted the matter to this Court “for
    clarification of the basis of [our] decision” (id. at ___).
    Upon remittitur, we conclude that defendant’s waiver of the right
    to appeal is invalid inasmuch as the minimal perfunctory inquiry made
    by Supreme Court was “insufficient to establish that the court
    ‘engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the
    -2-                       859/11
    KA 08-00219
    waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice’ ”
    (People v Brown, 296 AD2d 860, lv denied 98 NY2d 767; see People v
    Hamilton, 49 AD3d 1163, 1164). We further conclude, however, that the
    sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
    Entered: June 8, 2012                          Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 08-00219

Filed Date: 6/8/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016