Opinion
2017–02517 Ind. No. 8856/15
04-17-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Aaron WILLIAMS, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Charity L. Brandy of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort of counsel; Marielle Burnett on the memorandum), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Charity L. Brandy of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort of counsel; Marielle Burnett on the memorandum), for respondent.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JEFFREY A. COHEN, BETSY BARROS, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Matthew D'Emic, J.), imposed February 8, 2017, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the period of postrelease supervision imposed as part of the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
The defendant's purported waiver of the right to appeal was invalid and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim. The Supreme Court's limited colloquy did not ensure that the defendant understood the nature of the right to appeal or the distinction between the right to appeal and the other trial rights which are forfeited incident to a plea of guilty (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 137–138, 141, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ). Under the circumstances here, we conclude that the defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to appeal (see People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ).
Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
AUSTIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, COHEN, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.