From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brown

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Feb 7, 2020
180 A.D.3d 1341 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

144 KA 18-00171

02-07-2020

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gerald BROWN, Defendant–Appellant.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (SARA A. GOLDFARB OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.


FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (SARA A. GOLDFARB OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CURRAN, TROUTMAN, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree ( Penal Law § 265.03[3] ). We agree with defendant that he did not validly waive his right to appeal because County Court's oral colloquy "utterly ‘mischaracterized the nature of the right’ " to appeal ( People v. Thomas, ––– N.Y.3d ––––, ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 08545, 2019 WL 6312521, *6 (2019), inasmuch as "the court's advisement as to the rights relinquished [by defendant] was incorrect and irredeemable under the circumstances" ( id. at ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d –––– 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 08545, 2019 WL 6312521, *5 ). Specifically, the court erroneously informed defendant that, by waiving the right to appeal, he could obtain no further review of the conviction or sentence by a higher court—crucially omitting any mention of the several rights that survive the waiver of the right to appeal (see id. at ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 08545, 2019 WL 6312521, *6–7 ). Thus, the colloquy was insufficient to ensure that the waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent (see id. at ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 08545, 2019 WL 6312521, *6–7 ). Nevertheless, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.


Summaries of

People v. Brown

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Feb 7, 2020
180 A.D.3d 1341 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

People v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. GERALD BROWN…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Date published: Feb 7, 2020

Citations

180 A.D.3d 1341 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
180 A.D.3d 1341
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 944

Citing Cases

People v. Bisono

’ " In invalidating the waiver, the court held that "[t]hese statements ‘utterly mischaracterized the nature…

People v. Bisono

For example, in People v Dixon (184 AD3d 854, 855 [2d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1065 [2020]), the court…