People v Tyler

People v Tyler 2015 NY Slip Op 06384 Decided on July 30, 2015 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: July 30, 2015
106736

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v

MARK H. TYLER, Appellant.

Calendar Date: June 5, 2015
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ.

Richard V. Manning, Parishville, for appellant.

Stuart M. Cohen, Special Prosecutor, Rensselaer, for respondent.

Lynch, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, J.), rendered March 10, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of, among others, the crime of failure to register as a sex offender.

In 1997, after defendant was convicted of rape in the third degree (People v Tyler, 260 AD2d 796 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 980 [1999]), he was required to register as a sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C). In 2013, he was indicted on one count of failing to register as a sex offender (see Correction Law §§ 168-f, 168-t). Pursuant to a combined negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded guilty to the charge, admitted that he had previously been convicted for failure to register as a sex offender, and also

pleaded guilty to certain charges contained in a separate six-count indictment charging him with criminal sale and possession of drugs [FN1]. During the plea allocution, defendant was advised that an appeal waiver was part of the negotiated disposition and he signed a written appeal waiver in open court. Defendant now appeals from that part of the judgment related to his conviction for failing to register as sex offender.

Defendant's sole contention on this appeal is that County Court should have assigned [*2]substitute counsel to represent him on his motion to withdraw his plea. For the reasons stated in People v Tyler (___ AD3d ___ [appeal No. 106719, decided herewith]), we find that County Court was not required to assign new counsel to represent defendant prior to deciding the motion to withdraw the plea.

McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: In a separate appeal, defendant challenges his plea pertaining to the drug-related convictions (People v Tyler, ___ AD3d ___ [appeal No. 106719, decided herewith]).