| People v Platel |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 06150 [187 AD3d 1216] |
| October 28, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jeff Platel, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Dina Zloczower of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and ChristopherBlira-Koessler of counsel; Lorrie A. Zinno on the memorandum), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court,Queens County (John F. Zoll, J.), imposed August 23, 2018, upon his plea of guilty, on theground 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 v Thomas, 34 NY3d545, 563-566 [2019]). The Supreme Court mischaracterized the nature of the waiver bystating, inter alia, that the waiver meant that the defendant's "case wouldn't go to a higher Court,"and that "no higher Court will review this case in any manner" (see id. at 563-566).Where, as here, "a trial court has utterly mischaracterized the nature of the right a defendant wasbeing asked to cede, an appellate court cannot be certain that the defendant comprehended thenature of the waiver of appellate rights" (id. at 565 [internal quotation marks omitted]).Further, in light of the defendant's age, lack of experience with the criminal justice system, andmental health history, the court's limited colloquy did not ensure the defendant's understanding ofthe distinction between the right to appeal and the other rights that are automatically forfeitedupon a plea of guilty (see People vFuller, 163 AD3d 715 [2018]). Further, the written waiver form did not overcome theambiguities in the court's on-the-record explanation of the right to appeal (see People vThomas, 34 NY3d at 568). Thus, the purported waiver of the right to appeal does notpreclude this Court's review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim (see People vFuller, 163 AD3d at 715).
Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d80 [1982]). Dillon, J.P., Austin, Roman, Hinds-Radix and Christopher, JJ., concur.