Opinion
2017–11617 Ind. No. 1653/14
10-23-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Antonio S. WEBB, Appellant.
Matthew W. Brissenden, P.C., Garden City, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Brian Witthuhn of counsel), for respondent.
Matthew W. Brissenden, P.C., Garden City, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Brian Witthuhn of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ROBERT J. MILLER, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Teresa K. Corrigan, J.), rendered May 17, 2017, convicting him of manslaughter in the first 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 defendant's contention, the Supreme Court sufficiently advised the defendant of the nature of the right to appeal, and the record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Bryant, 28 N.Y.3d 1094, 1095–1096, 45 N.Y.S.3d 335, 68 N.E.3d 60 ; People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 341–342, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Edmunson, 109 A.D.3d 621, 622, 970 N.Y.S.2d 635 ). We note that the written waiver form signed by the defendant contained erroneous statements with regard to the waiver of the right to appeal. While the written waiver's overly broad explanation of the issues encompassed by the waiver of the right to appeal, does not, standing alone, render the defendant's waiver involuntary, a written waiver containing these inaccurate statements should not be utilized in future cases (see People v. Edmunson, 109 A.D.3d at 622, 970 N.Y.S.2d 635 ; People v. Pelaez, 100 A.D.3d 803, 804, 954 N.Y.S.2d 554 ).
The defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 9, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022 ).
MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, MILLER and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.