From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Parrish

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jan 15, 2020
179 A.D.3d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

2018–01282 Ind.No. 2325–15

01-15-2020

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Michael D. PARRISH, Appellant.

Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel; Amanda E. Schaefer on the brief), for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.


Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel; Amanda E. Schaefer on the brief), for appellant.

Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (John B. Collins, J.), rendered November 1, 2017, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenges to the voluntariness of his plea of guilty (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). In any event, the record belies his claim that his plea of guilty was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see People v. Mitchell, 166 A.D.3d 1233, 1234–1235, 86 N.Y.S.3d 681 ).

We agree with the defendant that he did not validly waive the right to appeal. The County Court failed to explain the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right (see People v. Lall, 174 A.D.3d 740, 102 N.Y.S.3d 455 ). The fact that the defendant executed a written waiver of the right to appeal is not a complete substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal (see People v. Moncrieft, 168 A.D.3d 982, 984, 92 N.Y.S.3d 335 ; People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 139, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ). Thus, appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive is not precluded by the purported waiver. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).

DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Parrish

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jan 15, 2020
179 A.D.3d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

People v. Parrish

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Michael D. Parrish…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Jan 15, 2020

Citations

179 A.D.3d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 305
113 N.Y.S.3d 900

Citing Cases

People v. Ofield

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating so…

People v. Ofield

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating so…