Opinion
11-04-2015
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Christian CHAVEZ, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Mark W. Vorkink of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Rhea A. Grob of counsel; Paige Mankin on the memorandum), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Mark W. Vorkink of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Rhea A. Grob of counsel; Paige Mankin on the memorandum), for respondent.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Walsh, J.), imposed July 31, 2012, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
A defendant who has validly waived the right to appeal cannot invoke this Court's interest of justice jurisdiction to obtain a reduced sentence (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). Here, however, this Court is not precluded from exercising its interest of justice jurisdiction because the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid. The record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood “the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right” (People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 144, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ; see People v. Williams, 131 A.D.3d 627, 14 N.Y.S.3d 909 ; People v. Reyes, 121 A.D.3d 820, 821, 993 N.Y.S.2d 379 ). Although the record reflects that the defendant signed a written waiver of his right to appeal, the defendant's understanding of the appeal waiver is not evident on the face of the record inasmuch as the Supreme Court failed to engage in any “on-the-record discussion with the defendant regarding the waiver of his ... right to appeal” (People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d at 140, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ; see People v. Cantarero, 123 A.D.3d 841, 996 N.Y.S.2d 724 ; People v. Quezada, 122 A.D.3d 948, 948, 997 N.Y.S.2d 475 ; People v. Reyes, 121 A.D.3d at 821, 993 N.Y.S.2d 379 ).
Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant's contention, the periods of postrelease supervision imposed were not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
ENG, P.J., MASTRO, SGROI, MILLER and BARROS, JJ., concur.