People v Garrick

2023 NY Slip Op 00462 [213 AD3d 999]

February 2, 2023

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, March 29, 2023

[*1]

The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael T. Garrick, Appellant.

Rural Law Center of New York, Inc., Castleton (Keith F. Schockmel of counsel), forappellant.

Robert S. Rosborough IV, Special Prosecutor, Albany, for respondent.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (James A.Murphy, III, J.), rendered April 12, 2019, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty ofthe crime of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and (2) from a judgment of said court,entered April 12, 2019, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofrobbery in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to an amended superior court information charging himwith grand larceny in the fourth degree and purportedly waived his right to appeal.Defendant also pleaded guilty to a separate superior court information charging him withrobbery in the third degree and agreed to waive his right to appeal. Pursuant to the pleaagreement, County Court sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to a prisonterm of 11/2 to 3 years on the grand larceny conviction and a consecutiveprison term of 3 to 6 years on the robbery conviction. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. Initially, we agree with defendant that the waivers of the right to appealare invalid. The written appeal waivers indicate that they encompass all appellate issues,and the oral colloquies failed to clarify that appellate review remained available forcertain issues. As such, the record does not reflect that defendant understood the natureof the appellate waivers and, thus, they are unenforceable (see People v Loya, 204 AD3d1255, 1256 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1072 [2022]; People v Pompey, 203 AD3d1411, 1412 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1009 [2022]; People v Mayeaux, 197 AD3d1443, 1444 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1147 [2021]). As such,defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentences imposed is not foreclosed. We arenevertheless unpersuaded by defendant's contention that his physical, mental andemotional health, as well as his substance abuse issues, warrant a reduction of thosesentences. Given the serious nature of the criminal conduct, defendant's extensivecriminal history and the fact that the sentences imposed, which were less than themaximum, were agreed upon as part of the plea negotiations, the sentences are notunduly harsh or severe and, therefore, they will not be disturbed (see CPL 470.15[6] [b]).

Clark, J.P., Aarons, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Ceresia, JJ., concur. Orderedthat the judgments are affirmed.