| People v Ryerson |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 03627 [172 AD3d 909] |
| May 8, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Timothy S. Ryerson, Appellant. |
Anthony N. Iannarelli, Jr., New York, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, NY (William C. Ghee of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court,Orange County (Nicholas DeRosa, J.), imposed December 15, 2016, 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, as the record does notdemonstrate that the defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and theother trial rights that are forfeited incident to a plea of guilty (see People v Hong Mo Lin, 163 AD3d 849 [2018]; People v Santeramo, 153 AD3d1286, 1286 [2017]). Moreover, the County Court failed to provide the defendant with anadequate explanation of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving thatright (see People v Alston, 163AD3d 843 [2018]; People vEtienne, 152 AD3d 790 [2017]). Further, the transcript of the plea proceeding showsthat the court did not ascertain on the record whether the defendant had read the written waiver orwhether he was even aware of its contents (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 267 [2011]; People vSanteramo, 153 AD3d at 1287; People v Cambridge, 145 AD3d 795, 795-796 [2016]).Accordingly, the defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right toappeal, and thus, the waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessivesentence claim (see People v Dixon,163 AD3d 988, 989 [2018]; Peoplev Brown, 122 AD3d 133 [2014]).
Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]). Dillon, J.P., Austin,Roman, Maltese and Christopher, JJ., concur.