Opinion
2018–12095 Ind. No. 17–00885
06-23-2021
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. James R. BROWN, appellant.
Thomas R. Villecco, Jericho, NY, for appellant. David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Edward D. Saslaw of counsel), for respondent.
Thomas R. Villecco, Jericho, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Edward D. Saslaw of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Craig Stephen Brown, J.), rendered July 20, 2018, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The record does not establish that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ). The County Court mischaracterized the nature of the right to appeal by stating that the defendant's conviction and sentence would be final (see People v. Bisono, 36 N.Y.3d 1013, 1017–1018, 140 N.Y.S.3d 433, 164 N.E.3d 239 ; People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 564–566, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 ), and the written waiver form did not overcome the deficiencies in the court's explanation of the right to appeal, as it did not contain clarifying language that appellate review remained available for select issues (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d at 566, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 ). Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude this Court's review of the defendant's challenge to the County Court's suppression determination.
The County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials, because he was not subject to interrogation (see Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301–302, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 ; People v. Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286, 294–295, 425 N.Y.S.2d 295, 401 N.E.2d 405 ).
RIVERA, J.P., DUFFY, BRATHWAITE NELSON and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.