Opinion
2018–09026 S.C.I. No. 10069/18
06-10-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Tanesha SIMPSON, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Samuel Barr of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill and Roni C. Piplani of counsel; Eleanor Reilly on the memorandum), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Samuel Barr of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill and Roni C. Piplani of counsel; Eleanor Reilly on the memorandum), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JEFFREY A. COHEN, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by her motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Suzanne J. Melendez, J., at plea; Toko Serita, J., at sentence), imposed June 21, 2018, upon her plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
The defendant's purported waiver of the right to appeal was invalid and, thus, does not preclude appellate review of her excessive sentence claim (see People v. Evans, 169 A.D.3d 824, 824–825, 92 N.Y.S.3d 680 ). The Supreme Court conflated the waiver of the right to appeal with the defendant's waiver of her right to a trial by pleading guilty, and failed to confirm that she understood the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving it (see People v. Batista, 167 A.D.3d 69, 76, 86 N.Y.S.3d 492 ; People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 137–138, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ). Further, the court mischaracterized the nature of the appellate rights the defendant was being asked to waive (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 ). 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, CONNOLLY and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.