| People v Pierre |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 07152 [165 AD3d 1175] |
| October 24, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Rodney Pierre, 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 Talott of counsel; Kristin Rainis on the memorandum), forrespondent.
Appeals by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from two sentences of the SupremeCourt, Queens County (Barry Kron, J.), both imposed October 27, 2015, upon his pleas of guilty,on the ground that the sentences were excessive.
Ordered that the sentences are affirmed.
The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v Billups, 156 AD3d897 [2017]). The Supreme Court's statements at the plea allocution improperly suggestedthat the right to appeal is automatically extinguished upon the entry of a plea of guilty, and thereis no other indication in the record that the defendant understood the distinction between the rightto appeal and other trial rights forfeited incident to a plea of guilty (see People v Moyett, 7 NY3d 892,892-893 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6NY3d 248, 257 [2006]). Furthermore, although the record reflects that the defendantexecuted written appeal waiver forms, the transcript of the plea proceeding shows that the courtdid not ascertain on the record whether the defendant had read the waivers or discussed themwith defense counsel, or whether he was even aware of their contents (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 NY3d at 256-257; People v Santeramo, 153 AD3d at1287).
Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentences imposed were notexcessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Sgroi, Hinds-Radix,Brathwaite Nelson and Iannacci, JJ., concur.