Opinion
08-19-2015
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Terence WILLIAMS, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Leila Hull of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Lori Glachman of counsel; Robert Ho on the memorandum), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Leila Hull of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Lori Glachman of counsel; Robert Ho on the memorandum), for respondent.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), imposed March 26, 2012, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is 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 waiver of his right to appeal was invalid. The record fails to demonstrate that the defendant understood “the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right” (People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 144, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ; see People v. Reyes, 121 A.D.3d 820, 821, 993 N.Y.S.2d 379 ; People v. Bennett, 115 A.D.3d 973, 973, 982 N.Y.S.2d 554 ; People v. Jacob, 94 A.D.3d 1142, 1143, 942 N.Y.S.2d 627 ). Although the defendant executed a written waiver of his right to appeal, the Supreme Court's colloquy amounted to nothing more than “a simple confirmation that the defendant signed the waiver and a conclusory statement that the defendant understood the waiver or was executing it knowingly and voluntarily” (People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d at 140, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ; see People v. Cantarero, 123 A.D.3d 841, 841, 996 N.Y.S.2d 724 ; People v. Quezada, 122 A.D.3d 948, 948, 997 N.Y.S.2d 475 ; People v. Reyes, 121 A.D.3d at 821, 993 N.Y.S.2d 379 ). Under the circumstances here, we conclude that the defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to appeal (see People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ; see generally People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264–267, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 735, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46 ). Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
ENG, P.J., MASTRO, HALL, MILLER and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.