Opinion
No. 112152
07-21-2022
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Albert Quick, Also Known as Skeet, Appellant.
Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant. Meagan K. Galligan, District Attorney, Monticello, for respondent.
Calendar Date:June 17, 2022
Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant.
Meagan K. Galligan, District Attorney, Monticello, for respondent.
Before: Lynch, J.P., Clark, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Ceresia, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (McGuire, J.), rendered January 26, 2018, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
In full satisfaction of a nine-count indictment, defendant agreed to plead guilty to two counts of burglary in the second degree and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree with the understanding that he would be sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 13 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. The plea agreement, which encompassed additional potential charges then under investigation, also required defendant to waive his right to appeal. Defendant pleaded guilty in conformity with the plea agreement, and County Court thereafter imposed the agreed-upon terms of imprisonment. This appeal ensued.
We affirm. The People concede - and our review of the record confirms - that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid, as the written waiver of appeal is overbroad (see People v Jones, 196 A.D.3d 974, 974 [2021]; People v Velazquez, 194 A.D.3d 1181, 1182 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 995 [2021]) and County Court's oral colloquy "was insufficient to permit the conclusion that the counseled defendant understood the distinction that some appellate review survived" (People v Williams, 202 A.D.3d 1162, 1163 [2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 954 [2022]). Accordingly, defendant's challenge to the sentence imposed is not precluded (see People v Ward, 204 A.D.3d 1172, 1173 [2022]). That said, upon due consideration of all of the relevant factors, we do not find the agreed-upon sentence to be unduly harsh or severe (see CPL 470.15 [6] [b]).
Lynch, J.P., Clark, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Ceresia, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.