Opinion
2016–02085 S.C.I. No. 2896/15
08-08-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Iveth STEFFENS, appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and William H. Branigan of counsel; Victoria Randall on the memorandum), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and William H. Branigan of counsel; Victoria Randall on the memorandum), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SHERI S. ROMAN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by her motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorothy Chin–Brandt, J.), imposed February 4, 2016, 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 her right to appeal was invalid (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ). The Supreme Court's limited colloquy, which lumped together the waiver of the right to appeal with a separate waiver of indictment, did not ensure the defendant's understanding of the distinction between the right to appeal and the other rights that are automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty (see People v. Laboy, 153 A.D.3d 1363, 59 N.Y.S.3d 898 ; see also People v. Herring, 150 A.D.3d 1148, 1148, 52 N.Y.S.3d 654 ; People v. Contreras, 112 A.D.3d 649, 649, 975 N.Y.S.2d 904 ). Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim. 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, ROMAN, MALTESE and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.