| People v Kajuan L. |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 05605 [164 AD3d 523] |
| August 1, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kajuan L., Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Ronald Zapata of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, and William H. Branigan of counsel; Lorrie A. Zinno on the memorandum), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court,Queens County (Barry Kron, J.), imposed December 15, 2016, upon his plea of guilty, on theground that the sentence was excessive.
Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.
The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d257, 267 [2011]; People vLopez, 6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]; People v DeSimone, 80 NY2d 273, 283[1992]; People v Lopez, 156 AD3d903, 903 [2007]). In light of the defendant's age, lack of experience with the criminal justicesystem, and limited education, the Supreme Court's limited colloquy did not ensure thedefendant's understanding of the distinction between the right to appeal and the other rights thatare automatically forfeited on a plea of guilty (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d at 264;People v DeMicheli, 129 AD3d743 [2015]). Although there is a written waiver of the right to appeal signed by thedefendant in the record, there is no mention of it in the transcript of the plea proceeding, and thusthe court failed to ascertain on the record whether the defendant had read the waiver or whetherhe was aware of its contents (see Peoplev Iovino, 142 AD3d 561, 561-562 [2016]; People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133, 145 [2014]). Thus, the waiverdoes not preclude review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim. However, the sentenceimposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Dillon, J.P., Sgroi,Hinds-Radix, Brathwaite Nelson and Iannacci, JJ., concur.