People v. Host
Docket 113604
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02301
- Docket
- 113604
Appeal from a judgment of Sullivan County Court convicting defendant upon his guilty plea to first-degree murder.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant David Host’s conviction and 25-years-to-life sentence after he pleaded guilty to first-degree murder for a break-in that resulted in two deaths. Host had waived appeal rights, but the court considered his preserved claim that the plea was involuntary. The court found his claim unpreserved because he did not make a postallocution motion and that no statements during the plea proceeding raised significant doubt about voluntariness. Even on the record, the court concluded mental-health history did not undermine the plea, and the appellate waiver bars a challenge to sentence severity.
Issues Decided
- Whether defendant's guilty plea was involuntary due to his psychiatric history and statements in his presentence report.
- Whether the defendant preserved his challenge to the voluntariness of the plea by making a postallocution motion.
- Whether the appeal waiver bars review of the sentence as unduly harsh or severe.
Court's Reasoning
The court held the voluntariness claim was unpreserved because defendant did not file a postallocution motion despite having the opportunity, and no plea-court statements plainly cast doubt on guilt or voluntariness to trigger an exception. Even if considered on the merits, the record (including plea minutes) showed no indication that mental-health issues prevented understanding or participation in the plea. Finally, the unchallenged appeal waiver precluded review of the sentence's severity.
Authorities Cited
- People v Scully242 AD3d 1259 (3d Dept 2025), lv denied 44 NY3d 1068 (2026)
- People v Lopez71 NY2d 662 (1988)
- People v Rios2026 NY Slip Op 00963
Parties
- Appellant
- David Host
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- James Farrell
- Attorney
- Richard L. Herzfeld
- Attorney
- Brian P. Conaty
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-16
- Judgment rendered
- 2022-04-29
- Calendar date
- 2026-03-20
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider collateral review options
If there are constitutional or ineffective-assistance claims not dependent on appellate waiver, consult counsel about postconviction or habeas remedies that may permit review of plea voluntariness or related matters.
- 2
Evaluate preservation of issues for future filings
Discuss with an attorney whether a timely postallocution motion or other preserved record could have preserved issues and whether any procedural exceptions apply.
- 3
Seek sentencing relief if applicable
If there are new facts or legal developments, counsel can advise whether any motion to vacate the sentence or resentencing petitions are viable despite the plea waiver.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the conviction and 25-years-to-life sentence, finding the plea was voluntary and procedural rules barred review of the sentence challenge.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Defendant David Host, the People of the State of New York, and any parties interested in the voluntariness and preservation rules for guilty pleas in this jurisdiction.
- Why didn't the court review the voluntariness claim?
- Because Host did not make a postallocution motion after his plea, so his argument was unpreserved, and no plea statements triggered an exception that would allow review.
- Can the sentence still be challenged?
- Not on direct appeal here: the court said the unchallenged appeal waiver bars review of the sentence as too harsh.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Host - 2026 NY Slip Op 02301 People v Host 2026 NY Slip Op 02301 April 16, 2026 Appellate Division, Third Department The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Host, Appellant. Decided and Entered:April 16, 2026 113604 Calendar Date: March 20, 2026 Before: Garry, P.J., Clark, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Corcoran And Ryba, JJ. Richard L. Herzfeld, New York City, for appellant. Brian P. Conaty, District Attorney, Monticello (Thomas W. Raleigh of counsel), for respondent. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (James Farrell, J.), rendered April 29, 2022, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of murder in the first degree. In February 2022, defendant pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree (multiple victims arising from the same criminal transaction) in satisfaction of an 11-count indictment charging him and his codefendant with various crimes stemming from an incident where they broke into a residence and killed two people. The plea agreement also required defendant to waive his right to appeal both orally and in writing. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life. Defendant appeals. We affirm. "Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives his appeal waiver — regardless of its validity" ( People v Scully , 242 AD3d 1259, 1259 [3d Dept 2025] [citations omitted], lv denied 44 NY3d 1068 [2026]; see People v Oliveira , 244 AD3d 1411, 1411 [3d Dept 2025]). Defendant's challenge, however, to the voluntariness of his plea based upon his psychiatric history and a statement made during his presentence investigation that he did not intend to kill anyone when he entered the residence is unpreserved for our review as there is no indication that he made an appropriate postallocution motion despite having had ample opportunity to do so ( see People v Clark , 246 AD3d 1150, 1151 [3d Dept 2026]; People v Mahood , 238 AD3d 1433, 1434 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 983 [2025]; People v Taylor , 194 AD3d 1264, 1265 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 975 [2021]). In addition, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was not triggered as defendant made no statement during the plea proceeding that " 'clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea' " ( People v Rios , ___ NY3d ___, ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 00963, *1 [2026], quoting People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). In any event, were we to consider defendant's claim upon the record before us including the plea minutes, we would find that there is no indication that defendant's mental health issues interfered with his ability to understand and participate in the plea proceedings or impacted upon the voluntariness of the plea ( see People v Dolison , 189 AD3d 1779, 1780-1781 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1119 [2021]; People v Taft , 169 AD3d 1266, 1267 [3d Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1074 [2019]; People v White , 153 AD3d 1041, 1042 [3d Dept 2017]). Finally, defendant's challenge to the sentence imposed as unduly harsh and severe is foreclosed by his unchallenged appeal waiver ( see People v Kozik , 235 AD3d 1065, 1066 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 964 [2025]). Garry, P.J., Clark, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Corcoran and Ryba, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.