Opinion
219 KA 18-01293
03-17-2023
ERIK TEIFKE, ACTING PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (TIMOTHY S. DAVIS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
ERIK TEIFKE, ACTING PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (TIMOTHY S. DAVIS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, OGDEN, AND GREENWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of robbery in the second degree ( Penal Law § 160.10 [1], [2] [b] ). Defendant correctly contends and the People correctly concede that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because County Court "mischaracterized the nature of the right that defendant was being asked to cede, portraying the waiver as an absolute bar to defendant taking an appeal, and there was no clarification that appellate review remained available for certain issues" ( People v . Hussein , 192 A.D.3d 1705, 1706, 141 N.Y.S.3d 379 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 965, 148 N.Y.S.3d 769, 171 N.E.3d 245 [2021] ; see People v . Thomas , 34 N.Y.3d 545, 565-566, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020] ). We nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.