Opinion
2014–03893 Ind.No. 9737/12
02-13-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Luther GLASGOW, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Michael Arthus of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Thomas M. Ross of counsel; Ruby D. Andrade on the memorandum), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Michael Arthus of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Thomas M. Ross of counsel; Ruby D. Andrade on the memorandum), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin P. Murphy, J.), imposed October 31, 2013, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ) and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim (see People v. Fuller, 163 A.D.3d 715, 715, 76 N.Y.S.3d 852 ). Although the defendant signed a written waiver of the right to appeal, his signature did not, by itself, establish that he gave up his right to appeal knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily (see People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d at 138–139, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ). The Supreme Court conflated the waiver of the right to appeal with the defendant's waiver of his right to a trial by pleading guilty and failed to "engage in a comprehensive colloquy, which clearly places on the record the defendant's understanding of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving it" ( id. at 140, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ). Moreover, the court failed to advise the defendant that a defendant ordinarily retains the right to appeal even after pleading guilty, nor did the court provide any explanation of the appellate process (see id. at 144–145, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ).
However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
MASTRO, J.P., MILLER, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.