| People v George |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 06602 [131 AD3d 623] |
| August 19, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Randolph George, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., 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 (D'Emic, J.), imposed July 3, 2013, upon his plea of guilty, on theground that the sentence 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 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]; cf. People v Sanders, 25 NY3d337 [2015]). Furthermore, although the defendant executed a written appeal waiverform, the transcript of the plea proceeding does not show that the defendant understood"the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving it" when he executedthe written waiver (People vBrown, 122 AD3d 133, 142 [2014]). Under the circumstances of this case, weconclude that the defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive hisright to appeal (see id.; see generally People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337 [2015]; People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d257, 264-267 [2011]; People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People vLopez, 6 NY3d at 255; 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., Balkin, Chambers,Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.