People v Devallon
2020 NY Slip Op 02477 [182 AD3d 608]
April 29, 2020
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 3, 2020


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

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Priya Raghavan of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Caroline R.Donhauser of counsel; Isaac Belenkiy on the memorandum), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the SupremeCourt, Kings County (William M. Harrington, J.), imposed September 25, 2018, upon hisplea of guilty, on the 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 vThomas, 34 NY3d 545 [2019]; People v Brown, 122 AD3d133, 145-146 [2014]). Although the record includes a written appeal waiver formexecuted by the defendant, the Supreme Court did not engage in a comprehensivecolloquy with the defendant and "did not ascertain on the record whether the defendanthad read the waiver or discussed it with defense counsel, or whether he was even awareof its contents" (People v Brown, 122 AD3d at 145). The record does not containany assurances that the defendant, who was a first time felony offender, understood thedistinct appellate rights he was waiving by executing the written waiver (see People v Bradshaw, 18NY3d 257, 264-267 [2011]). Moreover, neither the court's colloquy nor the writtenwaiver contain any clarifying language that appellate review remained available forselect claims that may not be waived, including the voluntariness of the plea and appealwaiver, the legality of the sentence, and the jurisdiction of the court (see People vThomas, 34 NY3d at 565-568). Thus, thepurported waiver does not preclude this Court's review of the defendant's excessivesentence claim (see People vFuller, 163 AD3d 715, 715 [2018]).

However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90AD2d 80 [1982]). 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.