Opinion
2016-10663 Ind. No. 1127/16
01-16-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Christopher WALCOTT, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Melissa Lee of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel; Thomas Arning on the memorandum), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Melissa Lee of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel; Thomas Arning on the memorandum), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
As the People correctly concede, the defendant's purported waiver of the right to appeal was invalid, as the Supreme Court did not provide the defendant with an explanation of the nature of the right to appeal or explain the consequences of waiving that right. In addition, nothing on the face of the record demonstrates that the defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and other trial rights forfeited incident to his plea of guilty (see People v. Latham, 162 A.D.3d 1068, 80 N.Y.S.3d 128 ; People v. Santeramo, 153 A.D.3d 1286, 61 N.Y.S.3d 295 ; People v. Black, 144 A.D.3d 935, 41 N.Y.S.3d 126 ; People v. Pacheco, 138 A.D.3d 1035, 1036, 28 N.Y.S.3d 627 ; People v. Gordon, 127 A.D.3d 1230, 5 N.Y.S.3d 900 ). Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude review of the defendant's contention that the period of postrelease supervision imposed was excessive (cf. People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ).
Nevertheless, the period of postrelease supervision imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
RIVERA, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, BRATHWAITE NELSON and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.