Opinion
154 KA 20-01647
06-30-2023
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Clay D. RHODES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ERIN A. TRESMOND OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. JOHN J. FLYNN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DANIEL J. PUNCH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ERIN A. TRESMOND OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JOHN J. FLYNN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DANIEL J. PUNCH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, BANNISTER, AND OGDEN, 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 robbery in the second degree ( Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a] ) and assault in the second degree (§ 120.05 [12]). We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid because Supreme Court's "oral colloquy mischaracterized it as an absolute bar to the taking of an appeal" ( People v. McCrayer , 199 A.D.3d 1401, 1401, 154 N.Y.S.3d 557 [4th Dept. 2021] ; see People v. Thomas , 34 N.Y.3d 545, 565, 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] ). Although the record establishes that defendant executed a written waiver of the right to appeal, the written waiver does not cure the deficient oral colloquy because the court did not inquire of defendant whether he understood the written waiver or whether he had read the waiver before signing it (see People v. Sanford , 138 A.D.3d 1435, 1436, 30 N.Y.S.3d 440 [4th Dept. 2016] ). We nevertheless reject defendant's contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe.