| People v Gordon |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03562 [127 AD3d 1230] |
| April 29, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Christopher Gordon, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Paul M. Tarr ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the SupremeCourt, Richmond County (Rienzi, J.), imposed July 16, 2008, 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. The record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood thedistinction between the right to appeal and other trial rights forfeited incident to his pleaof guilty (see People vCantarero, 123 AD3d 841, 841 [2014]; People 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 record on appeal reflects that the defendant executed a written appealwaiver form, the transcript of the plea shows that "[t]he court did not ascertain on therecord whether the defendant had read the waiver or discussed it with defense counsel, orwhether he was even aware of its contents" (People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133, 145 [2014]). Accordingly,"despite [the] defendant's execution of a written waiver of the right to appeal, he did notknowingly, intelligently or voluntarily waive his right to appeal as the record fails todemonstrate a 'full appreciation of the consequences of such waiver' " (People v Elmer, 19 NY3d501, 510 [2012], quoting People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]; seePeople v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]; People v Cantarero, 123AD3d at 841; People v Brown, 122 AD3d at 145; People v Vasquez, 101 AD3d1054, 1054-1055 [2012]).
Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant's contention, the period of postreleasesupervision imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Eng, P.J., Mastro, Hall, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.