Opinion
386 KA 19-00951
04-28-2023
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Andrew J. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANE I. YOON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANE I. YOON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, MONTOUR, OGDEN, AND GREENWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree ( Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.03 [3] ), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and that his enhanced sentence is unduly harsh and severe. As the People correctly concede, defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because Supreme Court's oral colloquy and the written waiver of the right to appeal provided defendant with erroneous information about the scope of the waiver and failed to identify that certain rights would survive the waiver (see People v. Thomas , 34 N.Y.3d 545, 564-566, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020] ; People v. McMillian , 185 A.D.3d 1420, 1421, 127 N.Y.S.3d 669 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1096, 131 N.Y.S.3d 306, 155 N.E.3d 799 [2020] ). We nevertheless conclude that the enhanced sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.