| People v Bates |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 00213 [146 AD3d 1075] |
| January 12, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Akim Bates, Also Known as Gee,Appellant. |
G. Scott Walling, Schenectady, for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Tracey A. Brunecz of counsel),for respondent.
Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County(Giardino, J.), rendered June 14, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty ofthe crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
When this case was previously before this Court, we rejected counsel'sAnders brief, withheld decision and assigned new counsel to represent defendanton appeal (139 AD3d 1110 [2016]). New counsel has submitted a brief challenging thevalidity of defendant's waiver of the right to appeal and the severity of the sentence.
Turning to the appeal waiver, the record discloses that defendant executed a writtenwaiver and related to County Court during the plea colloquy that he voluntarily signed it.County Court did not, however, explain the nature and ramifications of the waiver orensure that defendant had read and understood it (see People v Lemon, 137 AD3d 1422, 1423 [2016], lvdenied 27 NY3d 1135 [2016]; People v Williams, 132 AD3d 1155, 1155 [2015], lvdenied 27 NY3d 1157 [2016]). Under these circumstances, we conclude that thewaiver was invalid and does not preclude defendant from challenging the severity of thesentence (see People vBradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-265 [2011]; People v Lemon, 137 AD3dat 1423).
Upon his plea of guilty to the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in thethird degree, defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to five years in prison,to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision. Given defendant's extensivecriminal record and his acquiescence to the sentence as part of the plea agreement, wefind no extraordinary circumstances nor any abuse of discretion warranting a reduction ofthe sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Day, 133 AD3d 920, 920 [2015]; People v Rabideau, 130 AD3d1094, 1095[*2][2015]).
Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose and Mulvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.