Opinion
No. 307 KA 18-00138
06-03-2022
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. WILFREDO ARROYO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Judith A. Sinclair, J.), rendered December 1, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of robbery in the third degree.
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 robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05). As defendant contends and the People correctly concede, the record does not establish that defendant validly waived his right to appeal. Here, the rights encompassed by defendant's purported waiver of the right to appeal "were mischaracterized during the oral colloquy and in [the] written form[] executed by defendant[], which indicated the waiver was an absolute bar to direct appeal, failed to signal that any issues survived the waiver and... advised that the waiver encompassed 'collateral relief on certain nonwaivable issues in both state and federal courts'" (People v Bisono, 36 N.Y.3d 1013, 1017-1018 [2020], quoting People v Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 566 [2019], cert denied __ U.S. __, 140 S.Ct. 2634 [2020]; see People v Montgomery, 191 A.D.3d 1418, 1418-1419 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1122 [2021]). We conclude that defendant's purported waiver is not enforceable inasmuch as the totality of the circumstances fails to reveal that defendant "understood the nature of the appellate rights being waived" (Thoma s, 34 N.Y.3d at 559; see Montgomery, 191 A.D.3d at 1419; People v Stenson, 179 A.D.3d 1449, 1449 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 974 [2020]). Although we are thus not precluded from reviewing defendant's challenge to the severity of his sentence, we nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.