People v. Harrington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department · 2020 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawGuilty PleasSentencingAppeal WaiversIneffective Assistance of Counselenhanced sentenceplea withdrawaljoint sentencing recommendation

Facts

Defendant pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child in a superior court information and waived his right to appeal. The People and defense counsel jointly recommended a sentence of two years in prison plus 10 years of postrelease supervision on the sexual abuse conviction and one year in jail on the remaining conviction, but County Court made no sentencing commitment. The court advised defendant of the maximum potential sentence and stated that it was not bound by the recommendation, and the written plea agreement also said sentencing was in the court's sole discretion with no commitment to impose the recommended sentence. County Court ultimately imposed concurrent terms of five years in prison plus 10 years of postrelease supervision on the sexual abuse conviction and one year in jail on the child-endangerment conviction.

Issue

Did County Court impose an enhanced sentence requiring that defendant be given an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea when it sentenced him above the joint recommendation? Also, were defendant's sentencing and ineffective-assistance arguments reviewable on appeal?

Rule

When a court advises a defendant of the maximum potential sentence, clearly states that it is making no sentencing promises and is not bound by a joint sentencing recommendation, and the written plea agreement confirms that sentencing is in the court's sole discretion with no commitment to the recommended sentence, a later sentence above the recommendation is not an enhanced sentence. A challenge to the severity of the sentence is barred by an unchallenged appeal waiver. An ineffective-assistance claim survives an appeal waiver only to the extent it affects the voluntariness of the plea, but it is unpreserved absent an appropriate postallocution motion.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Albany, Noah Mercer pleaded guilty to burglary under a written agreement. At the plea hearing, the judge told Noah the statutory maximum sentence, expressly said there were no sentencing promises, stated the court was not bound by the joint recommendation of probation, and the written plea form said sentencing remained in the court's sole discretion; at sentencing, the court imposed three years in prison instead.

Was Noah entitled to withdraw his plea on the ground that the court imposed an enhanced sentence?

Explanation. A sentence above a joint recommendation is not an enhanced sentence when the court advises the defendant of the maximum potential sentence, states that it is making no sentencing promises, states that it is not bound by the recommendation, and the written plea agreement confirms sentencing is in the court's sole discretion. Because those conditions were met here, Noah had no right to withdraw the plea. (Derived from People v. Harrington (n.d.).)