| People v Hong Mo Lin |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 05333 [163 AD3d 849] |
| July 18, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Hong Mo Lin, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Diane R. Eisner ofcounsel; Ruby D. Andrade on the memorandum), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court,Kings County (Joseph Gubbay, J.), imposed September 28, 2016, upon his plea of guilty, on theground that the sentence was excessive.
Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.
The record does not reflect that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligentlywaived his right to appeal (see People vBradshaw, 18 NY3d 257 [2011]). Although the defendant signed a written waiver of hisright to appeal, nothing in the record demonstrates that the document was translated for thedefendant, who required the use of a Fukienese language interpreter, before it was presented tohim for signature (see People vPerez, 160 AD3d 901 [2018]; People v Guarchaj, 122 AD3d 878, 879 [2014]). The SupremeCourt's terse colloquy failed to advise the defendant of the nature of the right to appeal, andsuggested that waiving the right to appeal was mandatory, rather than a right that the defendantwas being asked to voluntarily relinquish (see People v Santeramo, 153 AD3d 1286, 1286 [2017]; Peoplev Guarchaj, 122 AD3d at 879). There is no indication in the record that the defendantunderstood the distinction between the right to appeal and other trial rights that are forfeitedincident to a plea of guilty (see People v Santeramo, 153 AD3d at 1286; People v Black, 144 AD3d 935,935 [2016]). Under these circumstances, and given the defendant's inexperience with the criminaljustice system and his mental health history and background (see People v Bradshaw, 18NY3d at 264-265; People v Conley,150 AD3d 1023, 1023 [2017]; cf.People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337 [2015]), the defendant's appeal waiver was invalid anddoes not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim.
[*2] Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive(see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Leventhal, J.P., Austin, Cohen, Barros andChristopher, JJ., concur.