| People v Little |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03567 [127 AD3d 1235] |
| April 29, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Elijah Little, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Eve Kessler of counsel), 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, (Jeong, J.), imposed January 23, 2013, on the ground that thesentence was excessive.
Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.
The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid. The record failsto establish that the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was knowing,voluntary, and intelligent (seePeople v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 272-273 [2011]). An appeal waiver is notvalid unless the defendant's understanding of the waiver is evident on the face of therecord (id. at 264-265; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Here, the trialcourt's statement to the defendant that he was giving up his right to appeal, followed byits inquiry as to whether his attorney had explained that right to him, was insufficient todemonstrate a valid waiver (seePeople v Brown, 122 AD3d 133, 141 [2014]; People v Oquendo, 105 AD3d447, 448 [2013]; People vVasquez, 101 AD3d 1054, 1054-1055 [2012]; People v Boustani, 300AD2d 313, 314 [2002]). The defendant's execution of a written waiver "is not a completesubstitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal,and some acknowledgment that the defendant is voluntarily giving up that right" (People v Bradshaw, 76 AD3d566, 569 [2010], affd 18 NY3d 257 [2011] [emphasis added]; see Peoplev Brown, 122 AD3d at 138-139; People v Crawford, 110 AD3d 916, 916 [2013]).
Upon review, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte,90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Eng, P.J., Skelos, Leventhal, Roman and Duffy, JJ., concur.