| People v Burnett-Hicks |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 08429 [133 AD3d 773] |
| November 18, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lynda Burnett-Hicks, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Ellen Dille of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove andLinda Breen of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by her motion, from a sentence of the SupremeCourt, Kings County (Murphy, J.), imposed December 15, 2011, 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 her 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 George, 131 AD3d 623 [2015]; 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]; cf. People v Sanders, 25 NY3d337, 341 [2015]). Although the defendant executed a written waiver of her right toappeal, 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 AD3d133, 140 [2014]; see Peoplev Cantarero, 123 AD3d 841, 841 [2014]; People v Quezada, 122 AD3d 948, 948 [2014]; People v Reyes, 121 AD3d820, 821 [2014]). Under the circumstances here, we conclude that the record doesnot demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived herright to appeal (see People vBrown, 122 AD3d 133 [2014]; see generally People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-267[2011]; People v Ramos, 7NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255; People vHidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 735 [1998]).
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., Balkin, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.