Opinion
S.C.I. 17-00683 18-00526
11-03-2021
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Joshua Scott, appellant. Ind. No. 18-00379 No. 2019-12819, 2019-12820, 2019-12821
Philip H. Schnabel, Chester, NY, for appellant. David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Edward D. Saslaw of counsel), for respondent.
Philip H. Schnabel, Chester, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Edward D. Saslaw of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant from three judgments of the County Court, Orange County (Craig Stephen Brown, J.), all rendered October 22, 2018, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree under Superior Court Information No. 17-00683, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 18-00379, and bail jumping in the second degree under Superior Court Information No. 18-00526, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the record does not demonstrate that the defendant waived his right to appeal knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily (see People v Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545; People v Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264). The County Court's colloquies mischaracterized the nature of the appeal waiver as an absolute bar to taking a direct appeal (see People v Thomas, 187 A.D.3d 1069, 1070; People v Chy, 184 A.D.3d 664, 665; People v Howard, 183 A.D.3d 640). Further, the written waiver forms also mischaracterized the nature of the right to appeal by stating that the waiver encompassed all issues relating to the defendant's pleas and sentences. Thus, the purported waivers do not preclude appellate review of any of the defendant's contentions (see People v Gudanowski, 187 A.D.3d 1205, 1206; People v Habersham, 186 A.D.3d 854, 854).
The sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., AUSTIN, DUFFY and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.