| People v Adyl K. |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 06143 [187 AD3d 1208] |
| October 28, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Adyl K., Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort ofcounsel; Alastair Allen on the memorandum), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court,Kings County (Dineen Riviezzo, J.), imposed August 7, 2018, upon his plea of guilty, on theground that the sentence was excessive.
Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.
The defendant pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the third degree, admitting that he stole avehicle that had been left double-parked on a Brooklyn street with the keys in the ignition and theengine running. He was adjudicated a youthful offender and sentenced to a period of conditionaldischarge. On appeal, the defendant contends that the sentence was excessive and the SupremeCourt should have imposed an unconditional discharge. The People counter, inter alia, thatreview of the defendant's contention is precluded by his valid waiver of the right to appeal.
Contrary to the People's contention, the record does not demonstrate that the defendantknowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d545, 559 [2019]; People vLopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). The Supreme Court did not discuss the appeal waiveras part of the plea bargain being offered to the defendant before the agreement was reached, andit was not until after the defendant had already admitted his guilt that the court "described" thewaiver to the defendant (see People vSutton, 184 AD3d 236, 245 [2020]; People v Artis, 177 AD3d 758, 759 [2019]; People v Pressley, 116 AD3d 794,795 [2014]). Further, based on the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant's youngage, limited education, and lack of experience with the criminal justice system, the record doesnot establish that he understood the nature of the appellate rights he was waiving (see People v Eduardo S., 186 AD3d1265 [2d Dept 2020]; People vChristopher B., 184 AD3d 657, 660 [2020]; People v Guang Chen, 176 AD3d 1095 [2019]; People vPressley, 116 AD3d at 795-796). To the extent that the People rely on a claimed writtenwaiver, no written waiver is contained in the record on appeal (see People v Altamirano, 168 AD3d870, 871 [2019]; People vOrtiz, 167 AD3d 658, 659 [2018]; People v Zirkel, 164 AD3d 846 [2018]).
However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see CPL 470.15 [6] [b];People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Maltese, Barros, Brathwaite Nelsonand Iannacci, JJ., concur.