People v Baptiste
2020 NY Slip Op 01629 [181 AD3d 696]
March 11, 2020
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 29, 2020


[*1]
 The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Malik Baptiste, Appellant.

Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, NY, for appellant.

Thomas E. Walsh II, District Attorney, New City, NY (Carrie A. Ciganek ofcounsel), for respondent.

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, RocklandCounty (Victor J. Alfieri, J.), both rendered July 18, 2016, convicting him of robbery inthe first degree under indictment No. 15-00360, and criminal possession of stolenproperty in the fourth degree under indictment No. 15-00361, upon his pleas of guilty,and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

On these appeals from two judgments of conviction, the defendant contends that thesentences imposed were excessive. With respect to the judgment rendered underindictment No. 15-00360, the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal isinvalid because neither the County Court's colloquy nor the written waiver form containany language that appellate review remained available for select issues, including thevoluntariness of the plea and the appeal waiver, legality of the sentence, and thejurisdiction of the court (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 565-568 [2019]). The written waiver form did notovercome the ambiguities in the court's explanation of the right to appeal because thelanguage of the waiver suggests that the waiver may be an absolute bar to the taking ofan appeal (see 34 NY3d 564-568). Thus,the purported waiver does not preclude this Court's review of the defendant's excessivesentence claim under indictment No. 15-00360 (see People v Fuller, 163 AD3d 715, 715 [2018]). However,the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).

With respect to the judgment rendered under indictment No. 15-00361, thedefendant's excessive sentence claim is academic, as that sentence has already beenserved (see People v Waddy, 240 AD2d 521, 521 [1997]). Mastro, J.P.,Leventhal, Miller, Duffy and LaSalle, 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.