The Supreme Court, Kings County, shall file its report with all convenient speed.Under the circumstances of this case, we deny the People's motion to dismiss the instant appeal (see People v. Ventura, 17 N.Y.3d 675, 678, 934 N.Y.S.2d 756, 958 N.E.2d 884 ; People v. Jones, 104 A.D.3d 957, 960 N.Y.S.2d 910 ; cf. People v. Harrison, 115 A.D.3d 980, 982 N.Y.S.2d 544, lv. granted 24 N.Y.3d 1084, 1 N.Y.S.3d 11, 25 N.E.3d 348 ; People v. Serrano, 45 Misc.3d 69, 997 N.Y.S.2d 213 [App.Term, 2d Dept., 2d, 11th & 13th Jud.Dists.], lv. granted 25 N.Y.3d 953, 7 N.Y.S.3d 282, 30 N.E.3d 173 ).Inasmuch as the plea record demonstrates that the Supreme Court failed to advise the defendant of the possibility that he would be deported as a consequence of his plea, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his plea upon a showing that there is a "reasonable probability" that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court advised him of the possibility of deportation (People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 176, 198, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617 ; see People v. Al–Muwallad, 121 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 995 N.Y.S.2d 200 ; People v. Charles, 117 A.D.3d 1073, 1074, 986 N.Y.S.2d 228 ).

The Supreme Court, Kings County, shall file its report with all convenient speed. Under the circumstances of this case, we deny the People's motion to dismiss the instant appeal (see People v Ventura, 17 NY3d 675, 678; People v Jones, 104 AD3d 957; cf. People v Harrison, 115 AD3d 980, lv granted 24 NY3d 1084; People v Serrano, 45 Misc 3d 69 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists], lv granted 25 NY3d 953). Inasmuch as the plea record demonstrates that the Supreme Court failed to advise the defendant of the possibility that he would be deported as a consequence of his plea, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his plea upon a showing that there is a "reasonable probability" that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court advised him of the possibility of deportation (People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 176, 198; see People v Al-Muwallad, 121 AD3d 1123, 1124; People v Charles, 117 AD3d 1073, 1074).

Initially, as the People concede, defendant is entitled to intermediate appellate review of his conviction — notwithstanding defendant's deportation to Jamaica during the pendency of this appeal ( see CPL 450.10; People v Ventura, 17 NY3d 675, 679-681 [2011]; People v Jones, 104 AD3d 957, 957 [2013]). Additionally, in view of County Court's failure to distinguish the right to appeal from the remainder of the rights automatically forfeited by defendant upon his plea of guilty, as well as the court's limited inquiry into whether defendant fully appreciated and understood the terms of the written waiver that he executed, we agree that defendant did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive his right to appeal ( see People v Vences, 125 AD3d 1050, 1051-1052 [2015]).

The Court of Appeals indicated that “disposition of the discrete appellate issues would result in either an affirmance or an outright dismissal of the convictions; neither outcome would require the continued legal participation of defendants” (People v. Ventura, 17 N.Y.3d at 682, 934 N.Y.S.2d 756, 958 N.E.2d 884 ). While some post-Ventura cases have reviewed the merits of appeals by involuntarily deported defendants (see People v. Badia, 106 A.D.3d 514, 964 N.Y.S.2d 906 [2013] ; People v. Jones, 104 A.D.3d 957, 960 N.Y.S.2d 910 [2013] ), we find that, in this case, reversal would be required and, notwithstanding the fact that defendant has served his sentence, a penological purpose would be served by remitting the matter to the Criminal Court for all further proceedings (see People v. Allen, 39 N.Y.2d 916, 386 N.Y.S.2d 404, 352 N.E.2d 591 [1976] ). The crime with which defendant was charged is not a minor offense, but a serious one, which could potentially serve as a predicate for an enhanced charge (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193[1][c] ).