| People v Carrasquillo |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 05846 [130 AD3d 1498] |
| July 2, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vLuis Carrasquillo, Appellant. |
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Christine M. Cook of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.),rendered May 9, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, ofburglary in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty ofburglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [3]), defendant contendsthat the waiver of the right to appeal is not valid and challenges the severity of thesentence. We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalidbecause "the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that thecourt engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of theright to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice" (People v Jones, 107 AD3d 1589, 1589 [2013], lvdenied 21 NY3d 1075 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see e.g. People v Hassett, 119AD3d 1443, 1443-1444 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 961 [2014]), andbecause "there is no basis upon which to conclude that the court ensured 'that thedefendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rightsautomatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty' " (Jones, 107 AD3d at 1590,quoting People v Lopez, 6NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). We nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not undulyharsh or severe. Present—Centra, J.P., Lindley, Sconiers, Whalen and DeJoseph,JJ.