The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jessica Hendrie, Appellant.
113155
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
October 2, 2025
2025 NY Slip Op 05275
Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to
Calendar Date: September 5, 2025
Before: Pritzker, J.P., Lynch, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher and Mackey, JJ.
Erin C. Morigerato, Albany, for appellant.
Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Blythe Hicks, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondent.
Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Keith Bruno, J.), rendered August 2, 2021, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal nuisance in the first degree.
Defendant was indicted and charged with criminal nuisance in the first degree. The charge stemmed from a July 2020 incident wherein defendant allowed her apartment to be maintained as a gathering place for individuals engaged in the unlawful sale of controlled substances. In March 2021, defendant pleaded guilty to the sole count in the indictment with the understanding that, although County Court was making no sentencing commitment, she could be sentenced to a prison term of 1 1/3 to 4 years. When the parties appeared for sentencing in June 2021, County Court sua sponte adjourned the matter for an additional two months. County Court denied defendant‘s subsequent request for a further adjournment and thereafter sentenced defendant to six months in jail followed by five years of probation. This appeal ensued.1
We affirm. Defendant‘s challenge to the voluntariness of her plea, as well her assertion that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel (to the extent that such claim impacts upon the voluntariness of her plea), are unpreserved for our review as defendant did not make an appropriate postallocution motion — despite having ample time to do so prior to sentencing (see People v Leroux, 234 AD3d 1214, 1214-1215 [3d Dept 2025]; People v Werner, 227 AD3d 1273, 1273 [3d Dept 2024]). Further, upon reviewing the record, we are unpersuaded that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was triggered (see People v Prime, 233 AD3d 1182, 1182-1183 [3d Dept 2024]; People v Mehalick, 226 AD3d 1263, 1264 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 928 [2024]). In any event, defendant‘s claims that County Court‘s recitation of her Boykin rights was deficient and that she was denied meaningful representation are belied by the record (see e.g. People v Bailey, 224 AD3d 1044, 1045 [3d Dept 2024]; People v Lafond, 189 AD3d 1824, 1826 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1121 [2021]).
As to the sentence imposed, we do not find that the split sentence was unduly harsh or severe (see
Pritzker, J.P., Lynch, Fisher and Mackey, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.