Opinion
94 KA 16-02359
02-11-2021
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Larry D. MONTGOMERY, Defendant-Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree ( Penal Law § 140.20 ). We agree with defendant that the record does not establish that he validly waived his right to appeal. Here, the rights encompassed by defendant's purported waiver of the right to appeal "were mischaracterized during the oral colloquy and in [the] written form[ ] executed by defendant[ ], which indicated the waiver was an absolute bar to direct appeal, failed to signal that any issues survived the waiver and ... advised that the waiver encompassed ‘collateral relief on certain nonwaivable issues in both state and federal courts’ " ( People v. Bisono , 36 N.Y.3d 1013, 1018, 140 N.Y.S.3d 433, 164 N.E.3d 239 [2020], quoting People v. Thomas , 34 N.Y.3d 545, 566, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020] ). We conclude that defendant's purported waiver is not enforceable inasmuch as the totality of the circumstances fails to reveal that defendant "understood the nature of the appellate rights being waived" ( Thomas , 34 N.Y.3d at 559, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 ; see People v. Stenson , 179 A.D.3d 1449, 1449, 114 N.Y.S.3d 926 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 974, 125 N.Y.S.3d 39, 148 N.E.3d 503 [2020] ). Although we are thus not precluded from reviewing defendant's challenge to the severity of his sentence, we nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.