From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ragoobar

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Oct 9, 2019
176 A.D.3d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

2015-12099 Ind. No. 2583/15

10-09-2019

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Keron RAGOOBAR, Appellant.

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY, for appellant. John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Johnnette Traill of counsel; Victoria Randall on the memorandum), for respondent.


Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY, for appellant.

John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Johnnette Traill of counsel; Victoria Randall on the memorandum), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, 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, Queens County (Dorothy Chin Brandt, J.), imposed November 20, 2015, 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, conducted at the original plea proceeding on September 30, 2015, was invalid. The Supreme Court conflated the right to appeal with the right to be indicted by a grand jury (see People v. Lall, 174 A.D.3d 740, 102 N.Y.S.3d 455 ; People v. Ortiz, 167 A.D.3d 658, 658, 86 N.Y.S.3d 914 ; People v. Steffens, 164 A.D.3d 616, 616, 78 N.Y.S.3d 681 ), and failed to confirm that the defendant understood the nature of the right to appeal, and that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty (see People v. Baker, 174 A.D.3d 914, 915, 103 N.Y.S.3d 311 ; see generally People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 267, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256–257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). Accordingly, the purported waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim (see People v. Johnson, 157 A.D.3d 964, 965, 67 N.Y.S.3d 492 ).

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., LEVENTHAL, MILLER, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ragoobar

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Oct 9, 2019
176 A.D.3d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

People v. Ragoobar

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Keron Ragoobar…

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

Date published: Oct 9, 2019

Citations

176 A.D.3d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 7291
107 N.Y.S.3d 895

Citing Cases

People v. Wanzer

Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid. The…