Opinion
No. 2018-02895 Ind. No. 2647/16
12-14-2022
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Isaiah Nicholson, appellant.
Toni Messina, New York, NY, for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Rebecca Nealon of counsel), for respondent.
Toni Messina, New York, NY, for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Rebecca Nealon of counsel), for respondent.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kenneth C. Holder, J.), rendered February 8, 2018, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the record fails to demonstrate that the defendant waived his right to appeal knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily (see People v Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 561-566; People v Emery, 196 A.D.3d 599, 599; People v Habersham, 186 A.D.3d 854, 854). "The defendant's written waiver of the right to appeal misstated the applicable law and was misleading, 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" (People v Habersham, 186 A.D.3d at 854, citing People v Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d at 565-566; People v Suarez-Montoya, 183 A.D.3d 765; People v Howard, 183 A.D.3d 640; People v Wilkinson, 176 A.D.3d 879). The Supreme Court's colloquy at the plea proceeding was insufficient to cure the defects of the written waiver (see People v Bisono, 36 N.Y.3d 1013, 1017-1018; People v Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d at 564-566; People v Emery, 196 A.D.3d at 599; People v Chy, 184 A.D.3d 664, 665). Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim (see People v Habersham, 186 A.D.3d at 855; People v Dixon, 184 A.D.3d 854, 855).
Nonetheless, the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court imposed a harsher sentence as punishment for exercising his right to a jury trial rather than accepting a plea offer prior to trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Douglas, 200 A.D.3d 795, 798-799, citing People v Mujica, 146 A.D.3d 902, 903). In any event, the fact that the sentence imposed after exercising his right to proceed to trial "was greater than the sentence offered during plea negotiations does not, standing alone, establish that the defendant was punished for exercising his right to trial" (People v Douglas, 200 A.D.3d at 799 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
By ultimately entering a plea of guilty the defendant did "not forfeit his right to seek review of an alleged Brady violation" (People v Kelly, 208 A.D.3d 1250, 1251). However, the alleged Brady violation involves matters dehors the record and therefore "cannot be reviewed on direct appeal" (People v Walker, 189 A.D.3d 1619, 1619; see People v Helenese, 75 A.D.3d 653, 655).
With respect to the defendant's claims of error in the Supreme Court's evidentiary rulings that occurred at trial before he entered a plea of guilty, those contentions were forfeited upon his plea (see People v Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 230; People v Sirico, 135 A.D.3d 19, 24-25; People v Gerber, 182 A.D.2d 252, 260-261).
DUFFY, J.P., CHAMBERS, MALTESE and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.