State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: November 6, 2014 105646 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MAURICE J. COLON,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: October 9, 2014

Before: Stein, J.P., Garry, Rose, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________

Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant.

James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Katy

Schlichtman of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan

County (LaBuda, J.), rendered December 20, 2012, convicting

defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal

possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was charged in a seven-count indictment with a

multitude of drug-related crimes following a routine traffic stop

in which his vehicle was searched and various controlled

substances were found. In October 2011, he pleaded guilty to

criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree

in satisfaction of the indictment. Under the terms of the plea

agreement, he waived his right to appeal and was to be sentenced

as a second felony offender to three years in prison to be

followed by three years of postrelease supervision. In addition,
-2- 105646 

it was agreed that defendant would be released to a drug

treatment program following the entry of his guilty plea and that

sentencing would occur three months later, at which time he would

be incarcerated with the potential for admission to a

diversionary program.

Defendant was released and entered a drug treatment

program, but was arrested and detained on federal charges prior

to sentencing. During this time, he moved to terminate the

services of the attorney who represented him in connection with

his guilty plea. In July 2012, County Court granted the motion

and assigned new counsel. Thereafter, defendant, through new

counsel, moved to withdraw his guilty plea. County Court

summarily denied the motion and sentenced defendant to the

agreed-upon sentence, to run concurrently to the sentence imposed

on the federal charges. Defendant now appeals. 

Defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion

in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Specifically,

he asserts that he felt pressured into entering the plea because

his counsel did not endorse his suggested defense strategy of

seeking to suppress evidence recovered from his vehicle and he

pleaded guilty based upon counsel's recommendation without fully

understanding the consequences of his plea. Insofar as this

claim implicates the voluntariness of defendant's plea, it is not

precluded by his waiver of the right to appeal and has been

preserved by his motion to withdraw his plea (see People v

McGowan, 117 AD3d 1202, 1202 [2014]; People v Torres, 117 AD3d

1497, 1498 [2014], lvs denied 24 NY3d 963, 965 [2014]). 

Nevertheless, we find it to be without merit. During the plea

colloquy, defendant indicated that he understood the rights that

he was waiving as explained to him by his attorney and was

satisfied with his attorney's services. He further stated,

unequivocally, that he was not under the influence of any

medication that would affect his ability to understand the

proceedings and was not forced, threatened or coerced into

entering his guilty plea. He also freely admitted to engaging in

the conduct constituting the crime at issue. Our review of the

record does not reveal that defendant's plea was the product of

coercion (see e.g. People v Wren, 119 AD3d 1291, 1292 [2014];

People v O'Neill, 116 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]; People v Morey, 110
-3- 105646 

AD3d 1378, 1379 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 965 [2014]). Rather,

his claim that he was pressured into entering the plea "amounts

to the type of 'situational coercion' faced by many defendants

offered a plea deal, and it does not undermine the voluntariness

of [defendant's] guilty plea" (People v Morey, 110 AD3d at 1379,

quoting People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 8 [1989]). Therefore, we

find that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying

defendant's motion.

Stein, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court