Judgment Day

The Third's War Room April 17 was Judgment Day for the Appellate Division, Third Department, and a number of criminal case decisions were released. The holdings are pretty bland—most of the cases involved plea deals, which almost always result in decisions restating long-standing precedent and affirming the lower court’s ruling.

People v. Saddlemire, however, may be of interest to other assigned counsel or attorneys who regularly handle plea cases. Often times while I’m waiting for lower court trial documents, I’ll be assigned a few plea cases. More often than not, the trial court is so diligent in questioning the defendant that very little is available for argument on appeal. The voluntariness of the plea, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the sentence are the main issues for review. The court’s holding in Saddlemire, while nothing new, gives us even less to work with.

In Saddlemire, the defendant pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal contempt in the first degree. The County Court sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to 2 to 4 years in prison for both convictions, with the sentences to run concurrently.

On appeal, the defendant argued his sentence as a second felony offender was illegal because the County Court failed to specifically inquire if he wished to controvert any allegations made in the second felony offender statement as required bv CPL 400.21 (3). The Third Department found the omission to be harmless:

[The] defendant was aware that he was to be sentenced as a second felony offender, was given notice of and an opportunity to controvert the second felony offender statement, and admitted that he was the person previously convicted of the prior felony. Furthermore, defendant does not challenge the validity of the prior conviction.

Note how the court recognizes the County Court failed to "specifically" inquire whether the defendant wished to controvert any allegations in the second felony offender statement (finding it harmless error), and then states the defendant was given an opportunity to controvert the second felony offender statement.

The defendant also argued the voluntariness of his plea. The court held, “although defendant did not personally recite the underlying facts,” his “ affirmative response to the County Court's recitation of the facts during the plea colloquy established the elements of criminal contempt in the first degree.”

Not requiring the County Court to specifically inquire about the second felony offender statement, or have the defendant outline the facts underlying the crime charged, gives attorneys even less to work with when appealing plea cases.

The Third’s next Judgment Day will be April 24th.