| People v Billups |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 09147 [156 AD3d 897] |
| December 27, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Solomon Billups, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (A. Alexander Donn of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel; Jenny Hannigan on the memorandum), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court,Queens County (Kron, J.), imposed July 10, 2014, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that thesentence was excessive.
Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appealwas invalid. The Supreme Court's statements at the plea allocution improperly suggested that theright to appeal is automatically extinguished upon entry of a plea of guilty, and there is no otherindication in the record that the defendant understood the distinction between the right to appealand other trial rights forfeited incident to a plea of guilty (see People v Moyett, 7 NY3d 892, 892-893 [2006]; People vBillingslea, 6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]). Furthermore, although the record reflects that thedefendant executed a written appeal waiver form, the transcript of the plea proceeding shows thatthe court did not ascertain on the record whether the defendant had read the waiver or discussedit with defense counsel, or whether he was even aware of its content (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d257, 267 [2011]; People vSanteramo, 153 AD3d 1286 [2017]; People v Cambridge, 145 AD3d 795, 795-796 [2016]). Under thesecircumstances, the record does not reflect that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently waived his right to appeal (see generally People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d at264-267; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 256-257 [2006]; see also People v Santeramo, 153 AD3d at 1287).
Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive(see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Eng, P.J., Balkin, Hall, Duffy and BrathwaiteNelson, JJ., concur.