People v Rivas
2018 NY Slip Op 08153 [166 AD3d 1019]
November 28, 2018
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 2, 2018


[*1]
 The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Andres A. Rivas, Appellant.

The Legal Aid Society, New York, NY (Justine M. Luongo and Ellen Dille ofcounsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, and Christopher J. Blira-Koessler of counsel; Deanna Russo on thememorandum), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the SupremeCourt, Queens County (Barry Kron, J.), imposed June 6, 2017, upon his plea of guilty, onthe ground 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, 18NY3d 257, 267 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]; People v Melendez, 164 AD3d1473 [2018]; People vJames, 164 AD3d 1363 [2018]; People v Kajuan L., 164 AD3d 523 [2018]; People v Bogun, 162 AD3d898 [2018]). Among other deficiencies, the Supreme Court's limited and muddledcolloquy did not ensure the defendant's understanding of the distinction between hiswaiver of the right to appeal and the other rights that are automatically forfeited on a pleaof guilty (see People vMelendez, 164 AD3d 1473 [2018]; People v James, 164 AD3d 1363 [2018]; People v Kajuan L., 164 AD3d523 [2018]; People vDaniels, 160 AD3d 979 [2018]; People v Waldon, 157 AD3d 913 [2018]). Although therecord includes a written waiver of the right to appeal signed by the defendant, the courtfailed to ascertain on the record whether the defendant had read the waiver or whether hewas aware of its contents (seePeople v James, 164 AD3d 1363 [2018]; People v Kajuan L., 164 AD3d 523 [2018]; People v Daniels, 160 AD3d979 [2018]; People vWaldon, 157 AD3d 913 [2018]). Thus, the purported waiver does not precludereview of the defendant's excessive sentence claim.

However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90AD2d 80 [1982]). Balkin, J.P., Sgroi, Barros and Christopher, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.