Opinion
2019–02957 2019–02958 Ind. Nos. 4619/15, 6927/15
02-10-2021
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Corey ROBERTS, appellant.
Craig S. Leeds, New York, NY, for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. ( Leonard Joblove and Camille O'Hara Gillespie of counsel; Marielle Burnett on the brief), for respondent.
Craig S. Leeds, New York, NY, for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. ( Leonard Joblove and Camille O'Hara Gillespie of counsel; Marielle Burnett on the brief), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jill Konviser, J.), both rendered January 2, 2019, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 4619/15, and attempted murder in the second degree (two counts) under Indictment No. 6927/15, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
The record does not demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal ( see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ). The Supreme Court mischaracterized the nature of the right to appeal by incorrectly describing the scope of appellate review ( see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 563–566, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 ), and the written waiver form did not overcome the deficiencies in the court's explanation of the right to appeal, as it stated that the defendant's sentences and convictions would be final ( see id. at 566, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 ). Accordingly, the purported waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's present contentions.
However, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel's failure to make a statement on his behalf at sentencing ( see People v. Bethea, 129 A.D.3d 986, 10 N.Y.S.3d 455 ; People v. Morel, 250 A.D.2d 626, 672 N.Y.S.2d 753 ).
Furthermore, the sentences imposed were not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN, HINDS–RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.