| People v Cantarero |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08658 [123 AD3d 841] |
| December 10, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Manuel Cantarero, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Adrienne Gantt of counsel; GeorgeBrandley on the memorandum), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove andLinda Breen of counsel; Robert Ho on the memorandum), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the SupremeCourt, Kings County (Murphy, J.), imposed December 16, 2011, on the ground that thesentence was excessive.
Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.
A defendant who has validly waived the right to appeal cannot invoke this Court'sinterest of justice jurisdiction to obtain a reduced sentence (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 255 [2006]). Here, however, this Court is not precluded from exercising itsinterest of justice jurisdiction because the defendant's purported waiver of his right toappeal was invalid. There is no indication in the record that the defendant understood thedistinction between the right to appeal and the other trial rights which are forfeitedincident to a plea of guilty (seePeople v Bennett, 115 AD3d 973, 973 [2014]; People v Jacob, 94 AD3d1142, 1143 [2012]; Peoplev Mayo, 77 AD3d 683, 683-684 [2010]; People v Olivier, 48 AD3d 486, 486 [2008]). Furthermore,although the defendant executed a written appeal waiver form, the transcript of the pleaproceeding fails to show that the defendant understood "the nature of the right to appealand the consequences of waiving it" when he executed the written waiver (People v Brown, 122 AD3d133, 140 [2014]). Under the circumstances here, we conclude that the defendant didnot knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to appeal (see People v Brown, 122AD3d 133 [2014]; seegenerally People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-267 [2011]; People v Ramos, 7 NY3d737, 738 [2006]; People vLopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 735[1998]).
Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentence imposed was notexcessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Eng, P.J., Mastro, Hall,Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.