People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733 (1998)

A defendant’s unrestricted waiver of the right to appeal encompasses the right to review a sentence as harsh and excessive, even if the specific sentence was not promised at the time of the plea, so long as the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant, who enters a plea bargain without a specific sentence promise and waives the right to appeal, can challenge the sentence as harsh and excessive. The Court held that an unrestricted waiver of the right to appeal encompasses the right to have the sentence reviewed, provided the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The Court reasoned that the defendant understood the potential sentencing options and knowingly waived the right to appeal, agreeing to abide by the court’s sentencing discretion.

Facts

The defendant participated in a street fight where an accomplice slashed a woman’s face. The defendant was indicted for first-degree assault. She pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree assault, a reduced charge, with no specific sentence commitment from the court. During the plea colloquy, the court explained the range of sentencing options and the defendant expressly waived her right to appeal her “conviction.” The defendant was later sentenced to one to three years of imprisonment.

Procedural History

The defendant appealed the sentence to the Appellate Division, arguing it was harsh and excessive, but the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Leave to appeal was granted by a Judge of the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a defendant’s general waiver of the right to appeal, made as part of a plea agreement without a specific sentence promise, encompasses the right to challenge the sentence as harsh and excessive.

Holding

Yes, because the defendant’s unrestricted waiver of the right to appeal, made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, encompassed her right to challenge the sentence as harsh and excessive, even though the specific sentence was not pre-determined at the time of the plea.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court relied on People v. Seaberg, which established that a defendant can waive the right to appeal as part of a plea bargain. The Court emphasized that plea bargains are vital to the criminal justice system and that enforcing waivers of appeal rights furthers public interest concerns. The Court stated, “trial courts are not required to engage in any particular litany during an allocution in order to obtain a valid guilty plea in which defendant waives a plethora of rights” (quoting People v. Moissett, 76 NY2d 909, 910-911). The Court found that the defendant understood the possible sentences she could receive and confirmed that no specific promises had been made. By waiving her right to appeal without limitation, the defendant agreed to accept the court’s sentencing decision. The Court distinguished this case from situations where public policy dictates that certain claims survive an appeal waiver, such as challenges to the voluntariness of the plea itself. This decision creates a clear rule: a general waiver encompasses sentencing review unless explicitly excluded, provided the defendant understands the potential sentencing range.