| People v Jeffery |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 00538 [135 AD3d 1235] |
| January 28, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vJeremy Jeffery, Appellant. |
John Ferrara, Monticello, for appellant.
James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Hannah Rose Prall of counsel), forrespondent.
Clark, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda,J.), rendered February 5, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimeof criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
After the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger was stopped by police for atraffic infraction, a search of the vehicle led to the discovery of, among other things, agun and ammunition. Thereafter, in satisfaction of a pending indictment, defendantpleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and waived hisright to appeal. He was sentenced, in accordance with the range contemplated by the pleaagreement, to a prison term of five years followed by five years of postreleasesupervision. Defendant appeals.
Initially, we agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is not valid. Areview of the record reveals that County Court did not "adequately convey that the rightto appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea ofguilty" (People v Mones,130 AD3d 1244, 1244 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).Furthermore, although defendant also executed a written waiver of the right to appeal,the record does not reflect that defendant read and understood the appeal waiver or that itwas adequately explained to him prior to signing it (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-265 [2011];People v Mones, 130 AD3d at 1245). As such, defendant's contentions raised onappeal are not precluded by the appeal waiver.
Turning to defendant's challenge to the presentence investigation report (hereinafter[*2]PSI), we are unpersuaded that inclusion ofinformation about the criminal conduct of defendant's brother must be redacted from thePSI because it is irrelevant and prejudicial. Inclusion of information in a PSI regarding adefendant's family circumstances and history is permissible (see 9 NYCRR 350.6[b] [2]). Furthermore, defendant challenged the inclusion of such information atsentencing, and there is no indication that County Court improperly attributed thebrother's conduct to defendant in imposing the sentence (see generally People v Judd,111 AD3d 1421, 1423 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1039 [2014]; People vAnderson, 184 AD2d 922, 923 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 901 [1992]).Defendant never requested a hearing regarding the reliability or accuracy of otherinformation in the PSI and, therefore, any claims related thereto are unpreserved (see People v Stacchini, 108AD3d 866, 867 [2013]). Finally, contrary to defendant's contention, we do not findthat the sentence imposed, which was within the parameters contemplated by the pleaagreement, is harsh or excessive (see People v Brodhead, 106 AD3d 1337, 1337 [2013],lv denied 22 NY3d 1087 [2014]).
McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.