| People v Cuevas-Alcantara |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 00668 [136 AD3d 650] |
| February 3, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Carlos Cuevas-Alcantara, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Tammy E. Linn of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel; Michael O'Connell on thememorandum), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the SupremeCourt, Queens County (Mullings, J.), imposed February 13, 2013, upon his plea ofguilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, as the recordfails to establish that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right toappeal (see People vBradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 272-273 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Little, 127 AD3d1235 [2015]; People vQuezada, 122 AD3d 948 [2014]; People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133 [2014]). The record doesnot demonstrate that the defendant understood the nature of the right to appeal and theconsequences of waiving it (seePeople v Cantarero, 123 AD3d 841, 842 [2014]; People v Brown, 122AD3d at 140). The defendant's execution of a written waiver "is not a complete substitutefor an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal, and someacknowledgment that the defendant is voluntarily giving up that right" (People v Bradshaw, 76 AD3d566, 569 [2010], affd 18 NY3d 257 [2011]; see People v Little, 127 AD3d1235 [2015]; People vBrown, 122 AD3d 133 [2014]).
Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentence imposed was notexcessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Eng, P.J., Dillon, Sgroi,Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.