| People v Murray |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 10185 [57 AD3d 921] |
| December 23, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v KezineMurray, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort ofcounsel; Avery N. Maron on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.),rendered January 17, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, uponhis plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal cannotbe considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, as the defendant was incorrectly informed, in apreprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of hissentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v Cruz, 54 AD3d 962 [2008];People v Williams, 52 AD3d 748, 749 [2008]; People v Pittman, 48 AD3d 709[2008]; People v Hurd, 44 AD3d 791 [2007]; People v Rose, 236 AD2d 637[1997]; People v Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]). Furthermore, contrary to the People'scontention, the defendant, who argued at sentencing that he should be afforded youthful offendertreatment, did not waive (cf. People v Berry, 233 AD2d 336 [1996]; People vMaybeck, 157 AD2d 861 [1990]; People v Belsito, 130 AD2d 583, 583-584 [1987];People v Polansky, 125 AD2d 342, 343 [1986]), or fail to preserve for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]; cf. People v Warde, 45 AD3d 879, 880 [2007]), his argumentthat he should have been afforded such treatment. Accordingly, we review that argument (seePeople v Joseph, 50 AD3d 1159, 1160 [2008]), but find it to be without merit, since youthfuloffender treatment was not warranted under the circumstances of this case.
The defendant's contentions concerning the Supreme Court's alleged failure to fulfill [*2]its sentencing promise are unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v Ifill, 108 AD2d 202 [1985]), and we decline to reach thosecontentions in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Dillon andCovello, JJ., concur.