People v Williams

2021 NY Slip Op 00457 [190 AD3d 1192]

January 28, 2021

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, March 3, 2021

[*1]

The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Karen Williams, Appellant.

Stephen W. Herrick, Public Defender, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), forappellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Christopher D. Horn of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Carter, J.), rendered January3, 2018, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of attempted robbery in thefirst degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the first degree and purportedly waived theright to appeal. County Court thereafter imposed the agreed-upon sentence of five years inprison, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Initially, we find that defendant's appeal waiver was invalid. County Court did not informdefendant that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights she was forfeiting bypleading guilty and did not adequately explain the nature of the waiver or ascertain defendant'sknowledge of its ramifications (seePeople v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Alexander, 174 AD3d 1068, 1068 [2019], lvdenied 34 NY3d 949 [2019]). Although defendant also signed a written appeal waiver,County Court did not ensure that defendant had read the waiver, discussed it with counsel orunderstood its contents (see People vBurnell, 183 AD3d 931, 932 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1043 [2020]; People v Dolder, 175 AD3d 753,754 [2019]). Given the invalidity of the appeal waiver, defendant's contention that the sentence isharsh and excessive is not foreclosed. Nonetheless, we discern no abuse of discretion orextraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the agreed-upon sentence in the interest ofjustice (see People v Cook, 171AD3d 1361, 1361-1362 [2019]; People v Mitchell, 166 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2018], lv denied33 NY3d 979 [2019]).

Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ., concur. Ordered thatthe judgment is affirmed.