People v. Mejia

Summary

The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed Carlos Mejia's judgment of conviction for assault in the second degree following his guilty plea. The court held that Mejia knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, and that his remaining challenges to his second felony offender adjudication and sentence were either unpreserved, not reviewable under the illegal-sentence exception, or not reached in the interest of justice.

Holdings

1. Under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal. The waiver was valid even though the court discussed it after the defendant's factual allocution because the defendant knew of the People's demand before agreeing to plead guilty, had discussed it with counsel, executed a written waiver before the plea proceeding, and received an adequate explanation of the waiver.
2. The valid appeal waiver barred appellate review of the defendant's claim that his adjudication as a second felony offender was unconstitutional under Erlinger v. United States and Apprendi v. New Jersey.
3. The defendant's claim that the People failed to establish the requisite tolling period was unpreserved because he did not contest or controvert his second-felony-offender status before or at sentencing.
4. The defendant's facial constitutional challenge to New York's predicate-felony offender statutes was not precluded by the appeal waiver, but it was unpreserved and the court declined to reach it in the interest of justice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal despite the court's explaining the waiver after his factual allocution.
2. Whether the valid appeal waiver barred the defendant's constitutional challenge to his adjudication as a second felony offender under Erlinger v. United States and Apprendi v. New Jersey.
3. Whether the defendant preserved his claim that the People failed to establish the requisite tolling period to bring his prior felony conviction within the applicable ten-year look-back period.
4. Whether the unpreserved sentencing claim qualified for review under New York's narrow illegal-sentence exception.
5. Whether the defendant's facial constitutional challenge to New York's predicate-felony offender statutes was preserved for appellate review.

Disposition

affirmed