Opinion
2016–12199 S.C.I. No. 10337/16
01-16-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Piero GOMEZ, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Alice R.B. Cullina of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and William H. Branigan of counsel; Deanna Russo on the memorandum), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Alice R.B. Cullina of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and William H. Branigan of counsel; Deanna Russo on the memorandum), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
The defendant's purported waiver of the right to appeal was invalid because the Supreme Court's oral colloquy improperly conflated the right to appeal with the rights that are automatically forfeited by a plea of guilty (see People v. Johnson, 165 A.D.3d 702, 82 N.Y.S.3d 735 ; People v. Ortizcora, 163 A.D.3d 1001, 1002, 77 N.Y.S.3d 642 ). Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude appellate 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 ).
DILLON, J.P., ROMAN, MALTESE and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.