Opinion
2018–03491 Ind. No. 2615/15
11-04-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Yugeshwar GAINDARPERSAUD, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Caitlyn Carpenter of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill and Roni Piplani of counsel; Anmari Guerrero on the memorandum), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Caitlyn Carpenter of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill and Roni Piplani of counsel; Anmari Guerrero on the memorandum), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, BETSY BARROS, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Charles S. Lopresto, J.), imposed January 22, 2018, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
The defendant's purported waivers of his right to appeal were invalid. The standard written appeal waiver forms misstated the applicable law and were misleading (see People v. Habersham, 186 A.D.3d 854, 127 N.Y.S.3d 775 ; People v. Howard, 183 A.D.3d 640, 121 N.Y.S.3d 622 ; People v. Wilkinson, 176 A.D.3d 879, 107 N.Y.S.3d 896 ), and further misstated that the defendant was giving up the right to poor person relief and postconviction remedies in both state and federal courts separate from direct appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 565–566, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 ; People v. Habersham, 186 A.D.3d at 854, 127 N.Y.S.3d 775 ; People v. Suarez–Montoya, 183 A.D.3d 765, 121 N.Y.S.3d 914 ). The Supreme Court's oral colloquies mischaracterized the appellate rights waived as encompassing an absolute bar to the taking of a direct appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d at 565, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 ) and failed to inform the defendant that appellate review remained available for select issues (see People v. Baptiste, 181 A.D.3d 696, 117 N.Y.S.3d 882 ). Thus, the purported waivers do not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim.
However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
RIVERA, J.P., MALTESE, BARROS, BRATHWAITE NELSON and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.