| People v Crochran |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 05686 [164 AD3d 598] |
| August 8, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lenwood Crochran, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Laura B. Tatelman of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Victor Barall ofcounsel; Robert Ho on the memorandum), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court,Kings County (Matthew Sciarrino, Jr., J.), imposed October 28, 2015, upon his plea of guilty, onthe ground that the sentence was excessive.
Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.
A defendant who has validly waived the right to appeal cannot invoke this Court's interest ofjustice jurisdiction to obtain a reduced sentence (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]). Here, however, thisCourt is not precluded from exercising its interest of justice jurisdiction because the defendant'spurported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid. The record does not demonstrate that thedefendant understood the nature of the right he was being asked to waive or the distinctionbetween the right to appeal and the other trial rights which are forfeited incident to a plea ofguilty (see People v Brown, 122AD3d 133, 137-138, 141 [2014]). Moreover, although the defendant executed a writtenwaiver of his right to appeal, the Supreme Court did not ascertain on the record whether thedefendant had read the waiver or whether he was aware of its contents (see People v Iovino, 142 AD3d561, 561-562 [2016]; People v Brown, 122 AD3d at 145). Under the circumstances,we conclude that the defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his rightto appeal (see People v Johnson,157 AD3d 964, 965 [2018]; Peoplev Brown, 122 AD3d 133 [2014]).
Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d80 [1982]). Scheinkman, P.J., Mastro, LaSalle, Roman and Christopher, JJ., concur.