| People v Williams |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 06607 [131 AD3d 627] |
| August 19, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Terence Williams, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Leila Hull of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and LoriGlachman 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 (DiMango, J.), imposed March 26, 2012, upon his plea of guilty, onthe ground 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 fails to demonstrate that the defendant understood "thenature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right" (People v Brown, 122 AD3d133, 144 [2014]; see Peoplev Reyes, 121 AD3d 820, 821 [2014]; People v Bennett, 115 AD3d 973, 973 [2014]; People v Jacob, 94 AD3d1142, 1143 [2012]). Although the defendant executed a written waiver of his rightto appeal, the Supreme Court's colloquy amounted to nothing more than "a simpleconfirmation that the defendant signed the waiver and a conclusory statement that thedefendant understood the waiver or was executing it knowingly and voluntarily"(People v Brown, 122 AD3d at 140; see People v Cantarero, 123 AD3d 841, 841 [2014]; People v Quezada, 122 AD3d948, 948 [2014]; People v Reyes, 121 AD3d at 821). Under thecircumstances here, we conclude that the defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently waive his right to appeal (see People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133 [2014]; see generally People vBradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 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., Mastro, Hall,Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.