| People v Quick |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 04669 [207 AD3d 954] [207 AD3d 954] |
| July 21, 2022 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Albert Quick, Also Known as Skeet,Appellant. |
Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant.
Meagan K. Galligan, District Attorney, Monticello, for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (McGuire, J.),renderedJanuary 26, 2018, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglaryin thesecond degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree.
In full satisfaction of a nine-count indictment, defendant agreed to plead guilty totwo countsof burglary in the second degree and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in theseconddegree with the understanding that he would be sentenced to concurrent prison terms of13 yearsfollowed by five years of postrelease supervision. The plea agreement, whichencompassedadditional potential charges then under investigation, also required defendant to waivehis rightto appeal. Defendant pleaded guilty in conformity with the plea agreement, and CountyCourtthereafter imposed the agreed-upon terms of imprisonment. This appeal ensued.
We affirm. The People concede—and our review of the recordconfirms—thatdefendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid, as the written waiver of appeal isoverbroad(see People v Jones, 196AD3d974, 974 [2021]; People vVelazquez, 194 AD3d 1181, 1182 [2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 995[2021]) andCounty Court's oral colloquy "was insufficient to permit the conclusion that thecounseleddefendant understood the distinction that some appellate review survived" (People v Williams, 202 AD3d1162, 1163 [2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lvdenied 38NY3d 954 [2022]). Accordingly, defendant's challenge to the sentence imposed is notprecluded(see People v Ward, 204AD3d1172, 1173 [2022]). That said, upon due consideration of all of the relevant factors,we donot find the agreed-upon sentence to be unduly harsh or severe (see CPL 470.15[6][b]).
Lynch, J.P., Clark, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Ceresia, JJ., concur. Orderedthat thejudgment is affirmed.