| People v Vega |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 06946 [165 AD3d 984] |
| October 17, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Luis Vega, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Michael Arthus of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Diane R. Eisner ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court,Kings County (Martin P. Murphy, J.), imposed February 24, 2016, upon his plea of guilty, on theground that the sentence was excessive.
Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.
The Supreme Court did not provide an adequate explanation of the right to appeal in view ofthe defendant's limited education and lack of prior experience with the criminal justice system.While the defendant signed a written waiver of appeal, the court failed to obtain confirmationthat the defendant had read the document before signing it and understood it. The written waiverwas not signed by counsel and the court failed to confirm that counsel had advised the defendantas to the right to appeal and the legal effect of the written waiver.
Accordingly, the defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was invalid and, thus, does notpreclude review of his excessive sentence claim (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257 [2011]; People v McWhite, 161 AD3d1106 [2018]; People v Medina,161 AD3d 778 [2018]; People vBrown, 122 AD3d 133 [2014]). Although the defendant has served his sentence, thequestion of whether the sentence imposed should be reduced is not academic, because thesentence imposed has potential immigration consequences (see People v Ayala, 142 AD3d 1095 [2016]). Considering all therelevant circumstances in this case, including that a knife was displayed during the subjectrobbery, we conclude that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte,90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Scheinkman, P.J., Roman, Austin, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.