People v. Clay: No Brady Violation (and No CPL 440.10 Hearing) Where an Allegedly Withheld Photograph Is Not Shown to Be in the People’s Possession and Would Be Inculpatory: N.Y. App. Div.

1. Introduction

People v. Clay addresses a defendant’s effort to unwind a negotiated guilty plea through both a direct appeal and a collateral attack under CPL 440.10. Raheim Clay pleaded guilty in Schenectady County Court to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, waived the right to appeal, and received the agreed-upon sentence.

On direct appeal, Clay argued that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered and that he was unduly coerced. In his CPL 440.10 motion, he framed ineffective assistance of counsel largely around an asserted Brady problem: he believed the People failed to turn over a particular photograph allegedly depicting the victim in his home on the day of the incident.

The key issues were (i) preservation and the effect of a plea and appeal waiver on plea-related and sentencing-related claims, (ii) whether the claimed “withheld photograph” could support a Brady violation, and (iii) whether counsel was ineffective for not securing that photograph and/or moving to withdraw the plea—such that a CPL 440.10 hearing was required.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Third Department affirmed both the judgment of conviction and the order denying CPL 440.10 relief without a hearing.

The claim that the plea was involuntary survived the appeal waiver, but it was unpreserved due to the absence of a postallocution motion, and the “narrow exception” to preservation did not apply because nothing in the plea colloquy or sentencing statements called voluntariness into question.
Claims that defendant was “compelled” to plead guilty by an “overbroad protective order” were foreclosed by the guilty plea and the unchallenged appeal waiver.
Challenges to alleged failures to redact portions of the presentence report were foreclosed by the unchallenged appeal waiver (and, in part, waived by lack of objection after redactions were made).
The asserted Brady violation failed: defendant did not establish the People possessed the photograph, and—based on defendant’s own description—it would be inculpatory rather than exculpatory.
Because the Brady theory failed, defendant’s related ineffective-assistance arguments failed; counsel obtained a favorable plea in light of significant exposure, and County Court properly denied CPL 440.10 relief without a hearing.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

A. Appeal waivers and what survives them

The court reiterated a familiar Third Department rule: although an appeal waiver can bar many claims, certain challenges—such as a claim that a guilty plea was not voluntary—can survive. The court cited People v Scully and People v Clerveau for that proposition, treating voluntariness as a fundamental plea validity issue that is not automatically extinguished by an appeal waiver.

B. Preservation of plea challenges and the “narrow exception”

Even when a claim survives an appeal waiver, the defendant must still preserve it by making an appropriate postallocution motion. The court relied on People v Gibbs, People v Merritt, People v Putman, and People v Richmond to enforce the preservation requirement.

The court then invoked People v Drake (and also People v Stuber) to reject application of the “narrow exception” to preservation—an exception that may apply where the record itself raises a substantial question about voluntariness (e.g., statements inconsistent with guilt or indicating coercion). Because Clay made no such record statements, the exception did not apply.

C. Claims foreclosed by a guilty plea and/or appeal waiver

The court treated the “overbroad protective order” coercion argument as a nonjurisdictional pre-plea issue, barred by the guilty plea, citing People v Peterson and People v Salters. It further held the claim barred by the unchallenged appeal waiver, citing People v Perry and People v Mendez.

Similarly, presentence report redaction challenges were deemed barred by the unchallenged appeal waiver under People v Blair and People v Joslin. In Footnote 1, the court added an independent waiver rationale: County Court removed some statements at defendant’s request and defendant did not object to the alterations, relying on People v Bailey and People v Walworth.

D. Brady doctrine: “favorable” evidence and proof of possession/suppression

On the merits of the claimed Brady issue, the court emphasized two points supported by precedent:

Evidence must be favorable (exculpatory or impeachment) to fall within Brady; inculpatory material does not. The court cited People v Kocsis, People v Hotaling, People v Battease, and People v Edkin, and also referenced People v Ruple.
A Brady claim requires more than speculation that the prosecution possessed and withheld the item. After noting that the People confirmed at sentencing that the photograph was not in their possession, the court cited People v Watson and People v Mullady in concluding there was no basis to find a Brady violation.

Notably, People v Ruple was used to address the defendant’s attempt to infer possession from a CPL 245.20 disclosure form referencing photographs of the address. The court treated such a generic disclosure entry as insufficient to establish the People had the specific photograph on the relevant date or depicting the victim.

E. Ineffective assistance in the plea context and CPL 440.10 hearings

The ineffective-assistance analysis was built from multiple strands of Third Department authority:

Where there is no showing that the allegedly missing item is exculpatory, a defendant cannot plausibly claim it would have altered the decision to plead guilty. The court cited People v Miles.
The court viewed defendant’s failure to say he asked counsel to withdraw the plea when he learned the photograph was not in the People’s possession as undercutting the claim, citing People v Jackson.
The “totality of representation” approach—particularly the weight placed on securing a favorable plea amid substantial sentencing exposure—was supported by People v Gonyea, People v Fish, People v Brunner, and People v Sabin.
For the proposition that CPL 440.10 relief may be denied without a hearing when the submissions and record do not show deficient performance or prejudice, the court cited People v Guilianelle and People v Kuhn.
Finally, the court cited People v Drake (2024) and People v Mangarillo to reject the “I would not have pleaded guilty” claim as unsupported once counsel’s performance was deemed adequate under the governing standard.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

A. The court’s procedural sequencing matters

The opinion proceeds in a disciplined order: it first eliminates claims via the appeal waiver and preservation rules, then reaches the Brady contention, and finally treats the CPL 440.10 ineffective-assistance arguments as dependent on the same asserted Brady foundation. This sequencing reflects a recurring appellate practice in guilty-plea cases: many issues are resolved without reaching merits because the plea, waiver, and lack of a postallocution motion narrow what remains reviewable.

B. Voluntariness: “survives waiver” is not “reviewable as of right”

The court recognized that voluntariness claims can survive an appeal waiver, but held the claim unpreserved because Clay did not move to withdraw the plea or otherwise seek vacatur in County Court. The decision underscores a practical lesson: a defendant who perceives coercion or misunderstanding must create a record through a timely postallocution motion; otherwise, appellate review will usually be unavailable.

C. “Overbroad protective order” coercion theory: a paradigmatic plea-foreclosed claim

By treating the protective-order argument as foreclosed by the guilty plea, the court implicitly categorized it as a nonjurisdictional defect and a pre-plea litigation issue. In other words, once a defendant pleads guilty, claims about pre-plea rulings or constraints typically become irrelevant unless they bear on a preserved, reviewable voluntariness claim—and here they did not.

D. The Brady claim fails on two independent elements: favorability and possession/suppression

The court offered two separate reasons why Brady did not help defendant:

Favorability: based on defendant’s own description (victim in defendant’s home on the day of the incident), the photograph would be inculpatory. Brady is directed at “favorable” evidence; inculpatory evidence does not trigger Brady disclosure obligations as framed by the cited authorities.
Possession/suppression: defendant’s belief that the People had the photograph was unsupported, and the People represented at sentencing that they did not possess it. The CPL 245.20 disclosure form’s generic reference to “photographs of defendant’s address” was not enough to prove the People had this specific photograph.

The court’s approach is instructive: even if a defendant can articulate a theory of “withholding,” the claim collapses without a non-speculative showing that the prosecution actually had the item and that it was favorable in the Brady sense.

E. Ineffective assistance: no deficient performance and no plausible plea prejudice

The CPL 440.10 argument was largely derivative: counsel was allegedly ineffective for not obtaining a photograph the People did not have and for not moving to withdraw the plea once that fact emerged. The court concluded there was no factual predicate for a Brady violation and no indication the photograph would be exculpatory. It also emphasized that defendant learned before sentencing that the photograph was not in the People’s possession and did not claim he asked counsel to withdraw the plea then.

Finally, the court anchored its “totality of representation” conclusion in the plea’s favorable terms relative to defendant’s exposure and history: effective assistance can be demonstrated by competent negotiation yielding a favorable disposition, especially where the post-plea attack rests on speculative or immaterial discovery theories.

3.3. Impact

Although the opinion is primarily an application of established doctrines, it has concrete practical effects in three recurring litigation spaces:

Brady claims tied to discovery “lists” under CPL 245: People v Clay signals that a CPL 245.20 disclosure form entry (e.g., “photos of the address”) does not, without more, establish the People possessed a specific photograph on a specific date depicting specific content. Defendants need evidentiary support, not inference from generic disclosure categories.
Brady framing limits: the decision reinforces that Brady is not a tool to compel disclosure of inculpatory material (as the court characterized the photograph here), and defendants should expect dismissal of Brady claims where the item’s described content strengthens the prosecution case rather than undermines it.
CPL 440.10 hearings in plea cases: where an ineffective-assistance claim is speculative, contradicted by the record, or fails to allege facts showing that counsel’s conduct plausibly affected the plea decision, a hearing is unlikely. The opinion thus provides a roadmap for courts to deny hearings when the motion papers do not establish an exculpatory link or plea prejudice.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Appeal waiver

A defendant can agree—often as part of a plea deal—to give up many appellate challenges. Some “fundamental” issues (like whether the plea was truly voluntary) may still be raised, but only if properly preserved.

Preservation and a postallocution motion

“Preservation” means you must raise an issue in the trial court at a time when the judge can fix it. After pleading guilty, that usually requires a motion to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment. Without it, appellate courts generally will not review the claim.

The “narrow exception”

If, during the plea or sentencing, the defendant says something that contradicts guilt or strongly suggests the plea was not voluntary, an appellate court may review voluntariness even without a motion. The court held that did not happen here.

Brady obligations

Brady concerns evidence that is favorable to the defense (exculpatory or useful for impeachment), in the prosecution’s possession, and suppressed in a way that matters. Speculation that the People had an item is not enough, and evidence that hurts the defendant (inculpatory evidence) is not typically “Brady material.”

CPL 440.10 motion

This is a postconviction motion to vacate a judgment. A hearing is not automatic; it is required only when the motion alleges facts that, if true, would justify relief and are not refuted by the record.

5. Conclusion

People v. Clay reinforces several procedural and substantive guardrails in guilty-plea litigation: (1) voluntariness claims may survive an appeal waiver but will be rejected as unpreserved without a postallocution motion absent record-based red flags; (2) nonjurisdictional pre-plea complaints are generally foreclosed by the plea and, often, by an unchallenged appeal waiver; and (3) Brady and derivative ineffective-assistance claims fail where the defendant cannot show the prosecution possessed the item, and where the item—by the defendant’s own description—would be inculpatory rather than favorable.

In broader context, the decision illustrates how modern New York plea challenges often rise or fall on record-making and specificity: courts will not order CPL 440.10 hearings or entertain Brady theories built on conjecture, especially where counsel negotiated a favorable plea against substantial exposure.

People v. Clay: No Brady Violation (and No CPL 440.10 Hearing) Where an Allegedly Withheld Photograph Is Not Shown to Be in the People’s Possession and Would Be Inculpatory