Opinion
2022–03968 Ind. No. 831/21
12-20-2023
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Renjie TANG, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Leila Hull of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Ellen C. Abbot of counsel; Miles Palminteri on the memorandum), for respondent.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Leila Hull of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Ellen C. Abbot of counsel; Miles Palminteri on the memorandum), for respondent.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, LARA J. GENOVESI, JANICE A. TAYLOR, LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ira H. Margulis, J.), imposed May 13, 2022, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the record does not demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, since the Supreme Court did not discuss the appeal waiver until after the defendant had already admitted his guilt as part of the plea agreement (see People v. Blake, 210 A.D.3d 901, 178 N.Y.S.3d 201 ; People v. Diallo, 196 A.D.3d 598, 147 N.Y.S.3d 454 ). Moreover, the court's colloquy improperly suggested that waiving the right to appeal was mandatory rather than a right that the defendant was being asked to voluntarily relinquish (see People v. Posy, 165 A.D.3d 1176, 84 N.Y.S.3d 362 ). Thus, the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal does not preclude appellate review of his excessive sentence claim.
However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., MILLER, GENOVESI, TAYLOR and LOVE, JJ., concur.