People v. Randolph
Docket CR-23-1527
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 02483
- Docket
- CR-23-1527
Appeal from a March 3, 2023 County Court judgment convicting defendant upon his guilty plea to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Robert W. Randolph’s conviction following his guilty plea to third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance. Randolph pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement that included a five-year prison term and a waiver of appellate rights; County Court imposed the agreed sentence. The appellate court found the written and colloquy-based appeal waiver valid, declined to disturb the plea (finding the voluntariness claim unpreserved), and rejected challenges to the People’s certificate of compliance and statutory speedy-trial claims as forfeited or foreclosed by the waiver. A constitutional speedy-trial claim was unpreserved and, on the merits, would not warrant relief.
Issues Decided
- Whether defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was valid and enforceable.
- Whether defendant's guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent given the plea allocution and advisals.
- Whether the People's certificate of compliance with CPL article 245 was invalid and whether that or statutory speedy-trial issues require dismissal.
- Whether defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated by the pretrial delay.
Court's Reasoning
The court found the appeal waiver valid because the plea colloquy and a signed written waiver showed defendant was informed that appellate rights were being waived and that he understood the waiver. The voluntariness and allocution claims were unpreserved because defendant did not file a post-allocution motion and did not meet the narrow exception for preservation. Challenges to the certificate of compliance and statutory speedy-trial claims were forfeited by the guilty plea and precluded by the valid appeal waiver; the constitutional speedy-trial claim was also unpreserved and, even if considered, the delay was not unreasonable given the seriousness of the charges, defendant's pretrial motions, and lack of prejudice to his defense.
Authorities Cited
- People v Terry244 AD3d 1378 (3d Dept 2025)
- People v Taranovich37 NY2d 442 (1975)
- People v Guilianelle233 AD3d 1179 (3d Dept 2024)
Parties
- Appellant
- Robert W. Randolph
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Joseph Cawley
- Attorney
- Christopher Hammond
- Attorney
- F. Paul Battisti
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-23
- Judgment rendered
- 2023-03-03
- Calendar date
- 2026-03-24
- Initial arrest
- 2021-08-01
- Guilty plea
- 2022-12-01
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult appellate counsel about preservation and further review
A defendant who wishes to pursue further review should consult counsel immediately to assess whether leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is available and whether any narrow postconviction remedies remain.
- 2
Consider postconviction motions if factual or constitutional issues exist
If there is newly discovered evidence, claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, or other postconviction grounds, evaluate whether a CPL article 440 motion could be filed.
- 3
Prepare to serve sentence and comply with conditions
Absent successful further relief, the defendant should make arrangements to begin serving the imposed sentence and, after release, comply with postrelease supervision conditions.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed Randolph's conviction and sentence, finding his written and oral appeal waiver valid and his preserved claims insufficient to overturn the plea or sentence.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Defendant Robert Randolph is affected because his conviction and agreed sentence are affirmed; the People’s conviction is upheld.
- What happens next for the defendant?
- Because the conviction and sentence were affirmed, Randolph remains subject to the imposed prison term and postrelease supervision; he may consider limited postconviction relief options if available.
- Why weren't the speedy-trial and certificate of compliance claims successful?
- The statutory speedy-trial and certificate challenges were forfeited by the guilty plea and barred by the appeal waiver; the constitutional speedy-trial claim was unpreserved and, on balance, would not have shown undue delay or prejudice.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Possibly to the Court of Appeals, but the effectiveness of further appeal may be limited by the plea waiver and preservation rules; consult counsel promptly about leave to appeal.
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 Randolph - 2026 NY Slip Op 02483 People v Randolph 2026 NY Slip Op 02483 April 23, 2026 Appellate Division, Third Department The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert W. Randolph, Appellant. Decided and Entered:April 23, 2026 CR-23-1527 Calendar Date: March 24, 2026 Before: Clark, J.P., Aarons, Ceresia, Mcshan And Corcoran, JJ. Christopher Hammond, Cooperstown, for appellant. F. Paul Battisti, District Attorney, Binghamton (Mary E. Saitta of counsel), for respondent. Ceresia, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Joseph Cawley, J.), rendered March 3, 2023, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. In November 2021, defendant was charged in an 11-count indictment with offenses related to his possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. Defendant pursued pretrial motion practice, including two unsuccessful applications to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds premised upon the alleged invalidity of the People's certificate of compliance with their discovery obligations under CPL article 245. He thereafter agreed to plead guilty to one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree in satisfaction of the indictment upon the understanding that he would be sentenced to a prison term of five years, to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision, that sentence to run consecutively to an unexpired period of parole supervision arising from a prior conviction. The plea agreement also required defendant to waive his right to appeal. County Court imposed the agreed-upon sentence, and this appeal by defendant ensued. We affirm. To begin, defendant's challenge to his appeal waiver is unavailing. Defendant was advised during the plea colloquy that a waiver of his right to appeal was a condition of the plea agreement, as well as that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the ones he was giving up by pleading guilty, and he acknowledged that he understood. Defendant also executed a written appeal waiver, and he confirmed during the colloquy that he had signed that "waiver after reviewing it with counsel, who had answered his questions, and that he understood that he was waiving his appellate rights as set forth therein, which also delineated the appellate rights not encompassed by the waiver" ( People v Terry , 244 AD3d 1378, 1379 [3d Dept 2025]). The foregoing satisfies us that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is valid ( see id. ; People v Fassett , 243 AD3d 1023, 1024 [3d Dept 2025]; People v Lewis , 234 AD3d 1209, 1209-1210 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 1009 [2025]). Defendant argues that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent because he was not advised of his right against self-incrimination and because his plea allocution was insufficient. This claim survives his appeal waiver, but is unpreserved in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion that he had sufficient time to make, and the narrow exception to the preservation rule was not triggered ( see People v Guilianelle , 233 AD3d 1179, 1180 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 1009 [2025]; People v Johnson , 221 AD3d 1172, 1173-1174 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 965 [2024]). Upon review of the record, we decline defendant's invitation to take corrective action in the interest of justice ( see People v O'Connor , 229 AD3d 1380, 1381 [4th Dept 2024]). Next, "defendant's challenge to the validity of the certificate of compliance issued by the People was forfeited by his guilty plea, and his related claim that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial is precluded by his valid appeal waiver" ( People v Martinez , 245 AD3d 1071, 1073-1074 [3d Dept 2026]; see People v Sheehan , 242 AD3d 1260, 1261-1262 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1054 [2025]; People v Berry , 236 AD3d 1199, 1200-1201 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1064 [2026]). His further argument that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated survives his guilty plea and appeal waiver, but is unpreserved for our review given his failure to raise it before County Court ( see People v Sheehan , 242 AD3d at 1262; People v Rivera , 201 AD3d 1132, 1134 [3d Dept 2022]). FN1 In any event, notwithstanding the fact that defendant was incarcerated for the 16-month period between his initial arrest in August 2021 and his guilty plea in December 2022, the charges against him were serious, the delay was not unreasonable by itself and was partially attributable to his own pretrial motion practice, and he does not allege that his defense was prejudiced by it. Thus, were we to consider the factors set forth in People v Taranovich (37 NY2d 442, 445 [1975]), we would find that defendant was afforded the due process to which he is entitled ( see People v Sheehan , 242 AD3d at 1262; People v Hatch , 230 AD3d 908, 914 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1020 [2024]; People v Rivera , 201 AD3d at 1134; People v Arrington , 31 AD3d 801, 802 [3d Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 865 [2006]). Clark, J.P., Aarons, McShan and Corcoran, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. Footnotes Footnote 1 Although defendant's notices of motion made reference to seeking dismissal on both statutory and constitutional speedy trial grounds, his arguments were limited to the statutory basis for dismissal ( see People v Brown , 167 AD3d 1331, 1333 [3d Dept 2018]).