| People v Charles |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08029 [67 AD3d 698] |
| November 4, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v HughCharles, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert A. Schwartz and Jason P.Weinstein of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court,Nassau County (Donnino, J.), imposed January 4, 2007, upon his conviction of robbery in thefirst degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, and attempted unlawful possession of personalidentification information in the third degree, after his plea of guilty.
Ordered that the sentence is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the CountyCourt, Nassau County, for resentencing in accordance herewith.
At the time that the defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree, attemptedrobbery in the first degree, and attempted unlawful possession of personal identificationinformation in the third degree, he waived his right to appeal, and the County Court gave him "anet sentence promise of state prison for 10 years plus 5 years post-release supervision." At thesubsequent sentencing proceeding, and after the prosecution recommended a sentence of 20years of imprisonment, the court noted various mitigating factors in the defendant's background,and also acknowledged an outpouring of community support for the defendant, as evidenced bythe various letters received by the court and the number of spectators who appeared in thecourtroom on the defendant's behalf. However, while the court observed that these circumstancesweighed in favor of leniency, it repeatedly and mistakenly indicated that the minimumpermissible term of imprisonment for the defendant's conviction of robbery in the first degreewas 10 years, rather than 5 years (see Penal Law § 70.02 [3]), and it remarked thatthe 10-year term was "mandatory under the law," that "there's nothing under the law that I can do[other] than to give him 10 years," and that said term "could not be affected by what was saidhere today." Accordingly, the court imposed a determinate term of 10 years of imprisonment,which it characterized as "the minimum sentence of imprisonment," on the defendant'sconviction of robbery in the first degree, and imposed additional concurrent terms on the otheroffenses "for a net determinate sentence of imprisonment of 10 years."
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d273 [1992]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 [1989]) forecloses review of his claim that thesentence imposed was excessive (seePeople v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]; People v Vega, 51 AD3d 694, 695 [2008]; People v Oquendo, 38 AD3d 686[2007]). However, his contention that the court failed to apprehend and to exercise the full scopeof its [*2]discretion at sentencing due to its mistaken beliefregarding the permissible minimum sentence for robbery in the first degree survives his waiverof the right to appeal (see People vNolcox, 40 AD3d 1128 [2007]; People v Halston, 37 AD3d 1144 [2007]; People v Schafer, 19 AD3d 1133[2005]). Moreover, since the record suggests "some expression of reservation by the court aboutthe fairness of the sentence[s] to be imposed" (People v Barzge, 244 AD2d 213, 214[1997]; see People v Seymour, 21AD3d 1292, 1293 [2005]), we reverse the sentences and remit the matter for resentencing(see People v Fehr, 303 AD2d 1039, 1040 [2003]; People v Jimenez, 209 AD2d719, 720 [1994]; People v Martindale, 202 AD2d 158, 159 [1994]; People vBest, 77 AD2d 836, 837 [1980]). At the resentencing, the court is free to impose the lawfulsentences which it deems appropriate, including a 10-year net determinate term of imprisonmentif, in the exercise of its full discretion, it finds such a term to be warranted.
The People's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Miller, Angiolillo andAustin, JJ., concur.