From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Golson

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jun 5, 2019
173 A.D.3d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

2017–13419 Ind. No. 2591/16

06-05-2019

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. David GOLSON, Appellant.

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (David L. Goodwin of counsel), for appellant. John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Roni C. Piplani, and Timothy R. McGrath of counsel), for respondent.


Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (David L. Goodwin of counsel), for appellant.

John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Roni C. Piplani, and Timothy R. McGrath of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JEFFREY A. COHEN, BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Barry Kron, J.), imposed November 3, 2017, 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 e.g. People v. Melendez, 164 A.D.3d 1473, 84 N.Y.S.3d 513 ; People v. James, 164 A.D.3d 1363, 81 N.Y.S.3d 743 ; People v. Vinson, 161 A.D.3d 1109, 73 N.Y.S.3d 905 ). The Supreme Court failed to confirm whether the defendant signed, read, or understood the written waiver (see People v. Elmer, 19 N.Y.3d 501, 510, 950 N.Y.S.2d 77, 973 N.E.2d 172 ; People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 283, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108 ), and the court's oral colloquy with the defendant did not demonstrate that the defendant understood the distinction between the rights automatically waived by a plea of guilty and the waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim (see id. at 257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).

BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, COHEN, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Golson

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jun 5, 2019
173 A.D.3d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

People v. Golson

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. David Golson…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Jun 5, 2019

Citations

173 A.D.3d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 4403
99 N.Y.S.3d 678