Opinion
2016-02911 2016-02912 Ind. Nos. 3327/15, 5360/15
12-05-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. RAVONE A. (Anonymous), Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Meredith S. Holt of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel; Thomas Arning on the memorandum), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Meredith S. Holt of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel; Thomas Arning on the memorandum), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, BETSY BARROS, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from two sentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin P. Murphy, J.), both imposed February 22, 2016, upon his pleas of guilty, on the ground that the sentences were excessive.
ORDERED that the sentences are 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 waivers of his right to appeal were invalid. The Supreme Court failed to provide the defendant with an adequate explanation of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right (see People v. Alston, 163 A.D.3d 843, 81 N.Y.S.3d 167 ; People v. Etienne, 152 A.D.3d 790, 59 N.Y.S.3d 427 ). Additionally, the record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and the other trial rights that are forfeited incident to a plea of guilty (see People v. Medina, 161 A.D.3d 778, 779, 76 N.Y.S.3d 629 ; People v. Guniss, 160 A.D.3d 895, 896, 75 N.Y.S.3d 224 ). Moreover, although the court indicated that the defendant executed written waivers of his right to appeal, the waivers were not provided with the defendant's motion. Further, the transcript of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the court did not ascertain on the record whether the defendant had read the waivers or discussed them with defense counsel, or whether he was even aware of their contents (see People v. Medina, 161 A.D.3d at 779, 76 N.Y.S.3d 629 ; People v. Santeramo, 153 A.D.3d 1286, 1287, 61 N.Y.S.3d 295 ; People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 145, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ). Under the circumstances here, we conclude that the defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to appeal (see People v. Medina, 161 A.D.3d at 779–780, 76 N.Y.S.3d 629 ; People v. Guniss, 160 A.D.3d at 896, 75 N.Y.S.3d 224 ; People v. Johnson, 157 A.D.3d 964, 965, 67 N.Y.S.3d 492 ; People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ).
Nevertheless, the sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
BALKIN, J.P., SGROI, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.