Opinion
2013-05920 Ind. No. 44/13.
02-24-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Patricia K. ARGILAGOS, appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Arthur H. Hopkirk of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (William H. Branigan of counsel; Lotus Cannon on the memorandum), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Arthur H. Hopkirk of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (William H. Branigan of counsel; Lotus Cannon on the memorandum), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by her motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), imposed May 24, 2013, upon her plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
The defendant's purported waiver of her right to appeal was invalid (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Chavez, 133 A.D.3d 611, 18 N.Y.S.3d 556; People v. Quezada, 122 A.D.3d 948, 997 N.Y.S.2d 475; People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297). The record does not demonstrate that she understood “ ‘the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving it’ ” (People v. Cantarero, 123 A.D.3d 841, 842, 996 N.Y.S.2d 724, quoting People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d at 140, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297; see People v. Quezada, 122 A.D.3d 948, 997 N.Y.S.2d 475). Therefore, notwithstanding the defendant's execution of the written waiver form, it cannot be said that she knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her right to appeal (see People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d at 145–146, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297).
Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
ENG, P.J., DILLON, SGROI, HINDS–RADIX and BARROS, JJ., concur.