Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Karen Maynard, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2009-02-06
Citations: 59 A.D.3d 1031
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Karen Maynard, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 59
Pages: 1031–1034

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Karen Maynard, Appellant.
[872 NYS2d 782]

Opinion:
Appeal from a judgment of the Yates County Court (W. Patrick Falvey, J.), rendered August 7, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the third degree and workers' compensation fraud.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is reversed on the law, the plea is vacated and the matter is remitted to Yates County Court for further proceedings on the indictment.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon a plea of guilty of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35) and workers' compensation fraud (Workers' Compensation Law § 114 [1]). The contention of defendant that her guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered is not barred by her valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]) and, although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review by moving to withdraw her plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Davis, 45 AD3d 1357 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1005 [2007]), we conclude that this case falls within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). The record establishes that the statements of defendant during the plea colloquy "negate[d] an essential element" of the crimes to which she pleaded guilty, and County Court failed to make any further inquiry (id.).
In response to the court's question concerning the facts underlying those crimes, defendant admitted that she filed claim forms containing the false statement that she had not performed volunteer work or worked for wages, but she further stated that "I didn't read the one question all the way through and I thought they meant was I volunteering or working for wages or tips . . . And I wasn't." Defendant's statements during the plea colloquy thus negated the essential elements of criminal intent with respect to the larceny count and intent to defraud with respect to the workers' compensation fraud count, thereby "triggering a duty on the part of [the court] to 'inquire further to ensure that defendant's guilty plea [was] knowing and voluntary' " (People v Ramirez, 42 AD3d 671, 672 [2007], quoting Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; see People v Bruce, 291 AD2d 879 [2002]; see also People v Pergolizzi, 281 AD2d 958 [2001]; People v Ocasio, 265 AD2d 675, 676-677 [1999]).
We therefore reverse the judgment of conviction, vacate the plea and remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings on the indictment.
All concur except Scudder, P.J., who dissents and votes to affirm in the following memorandum.