| People v Israel |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 04200 [172 AD3d 1405] |
| May 29, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Manuel Israel, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Denise A. Corsí of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Diane R. Eisner ofcounsel; Ruby D. Andrade on the memorandum), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court,Kings County (Danny K. Chun, J.), imposed November 9, 2016, upon his plea of guilty, on theground that the sentence was excessive.
Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.
The record does not establish that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligentlywaived his right to appeal (see People vBradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). The Supreme Court'sterse colloquy at the plea allocution failed to sufficiently advise the defendant of the nature of hisright to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right (see People v Moncrieft, 168 AD3d 982, 984 [2019]; People v Batista, 167 AD3d 69, 76[2018]; People v Brown, 122 AD3d133, 142 [2014]). Furthermore, although the record on appeal 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 Santeramo, 153 AD3d1286, 1287 [2017]; People v Brown, 122 AD3d at 139). Therefore, the defendant'spurported appeal waiver does not preclude appellate review of his contention that the sentenceimposed was excessive.
Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d80 [1982]). Dillon, J.P., Austin, Roman, Maltese and Christopher, JJ., concur.