Opinion
2017–13336 Ind.No. 504/17
12-02-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Demort ROBINSON, appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Sean H. Murray of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Terrence F. Heller of counsel; Isaiah Affron on the memorandum), for respondent
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Sean H. Murray of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Terrence F. Heller of counsel; Isaiah Affron on the memorandum), for respondent
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JEFFREY A. COHEN, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
Motion by the defendant for leave to reargue the defendant's appeal, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Alexander Jeong, J.), imposed October 17, 2017, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted, and, upon reargument, the decision and order of this Court dated June 17, 2020 ( People v. Robinson, 184 A.D.3d 779, 124 N.Y.S.3d 200 ), in the above-entitled action is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order is substituted therefor:
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Alexander Jeong, J.), imposed October 17, 2017, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid because the Supreme Court's colloquy and the written waiver mischaracterized the appellate rights waived as encompassing an absolute bar to the taking of a direct appeal, and failed to inform the defendant that appellate review remained available for certain issues (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 ; People v. Contreras, 183 A.D.3d 759, 121 N.Y.S.3d 665 ; People v. Howard, 183 A.D.3d 640, 121 N.Y.S.3d 622 ). Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude this Court's review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim (see People v. Fuller, 163 A.D.3d 715, 76 N.Y.S.3d 852 ). In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the defendant's alternate contention concerning the validity of 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 ).
BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, COHEN and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.