The People of the State of New York v. Steven C. Forshey
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law issues involving a guilty plea, waiver of the right to appeal, alleged grand jury prejudice from prison attire and restraints, and preservation of claims for appellate review.
Orleans County Court convicted defendant, upon his guilty plea, of attempted burglary in the second degree under Penal Law §§ 110.00 [criminal attempt], 140.25(2) [burglary in the second degree involving a dwelling].
Nothing was overturned; the judgment was affirmed.
The Appellate Division held that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was valid, his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea was barred by that waiver, his voluntariness challenge was unpreserved, and his claims about appearing before the grand jury in prison attire, shackles, and handcuffs were unpreserved because he did not object or seek curative instructions. The court also held that his ineffective assistance claim did not survive the guilty plea unless it affected the plea process, and any outside-the-record issues had to be raised in a Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) article 440 motion [postjudgment motion procedure for vacating a conviction].
Background
Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree after being charged in Orleans County. On appeal, through counsel and in a pro se supplemental brief, he argued that his appeal waiver was invalid, his plea was not factually sufficient or voluntary, and the indictment should be dismissed because he was allegedly forced to testify before the grand jury while wearing prison attire and visible restraints. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to object to those conditions and asked the Appellate Division to hold the appeal in abeyance pending resolution of his CPL article 440 motion.
Lower Court Decision
County Court accepted defendant's guilty plea and rendered judgment convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree. The court also obtained a waiver of the right to appeal during the plea colloquy.
Appellate Division Reversal
No reversal occurred. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment in full. The majority declined to review the grand jury restraint issue in the interest of justice under CPL 470.15(3)(c) [provision allowing discretionary interest-of-justice review]. Justice Ogden dissented and would have reversed the judgment and dismissed the indictment without prejudice to re-present charges to another grand jury because the prosecutor failed to place any justification for the restraints on the record and gave no curative instruction.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces several New York criminal appellate rules: a properly explained appeal waiver remains enforceable; a valid waiver can bar appellate review of the factual sufficiency of a plea allocution; challenges to plea voluntariness must generally be preserved unless the narrow exception from People v. Lopez applies; claims that a defendant appeared before a grand jury in visible restraints must be preserved by objection or request for curative instructions; and ineffective assistance claims after a guilty plea survive only when the alleged deficiency affected plea bargaining or the decision to plead guilty. The opinion also confirms that claims relying on matters outside the appellate record belong in a CPL article 440 motion.
A defendant who pleads guilty and validly waives the right to appeal faces major limits on appellate review, and unpreserved claims about grand jury restraints or plea voluntariness are unlikely to succeed absent a clear record or a direct impact on the plea itself.