Opinion
2019-01728 Ind. No. 7802/18
12-23-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jason CARCHI, appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Nao Terai of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort of counsel; Isaac Belenkiy on the memorandum), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Nao Terai of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort of counsel; Isaac Belenkiy on the memorandum), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sharen D. Hudson, J.), imposed November 29, 2018, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, 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 Supreme Court mischaracterized the nature of the right to appeal by stating that the defendant's sentence and conviction would be final (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 561–565, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 ), "and the written waiver form did not overcome the ambiguities 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" ( People v. Wallace, 187 A.D.3d 1071, 1071, 131 N.Y.S.3d 181 ; see People v. Dixon, 183 A.D.3d 837, 122 N.Y.S.3d 560 ). Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's contention that the sentence imposed was excessive.
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., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN, HINDS–RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.