Court Opinion

ID: 4579218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-10-21 19:08:36.544783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:03.486162
License: Public Domain

People v Sealey (2020 NY Slip Op 05946)

People v Sealey

2020 NY Slip Op 05946

Decided on October 21, 2020

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 21, 2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
BETSY BARROS
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

2018-08784
 (Ind. No. 17-00051)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vJaime Sealey, appellant. Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Anna K. Diehn of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Peter M. Forman, J.), rendered November 14, 2017, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and bribing a witness, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid because the County Court's oral colloquy mischaracterized the appellate rights waived as encompassing a bar to filing an appellate brief and the loss of attendant rights to counsel and poor person relief (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 560-564; People v Walder, _____ AD3d _____, 2020 NY Slip Op 04878 [2d Dept]; People v Howard, 183 AD3d 640). These defects were not cured by the terms of the written appeal waiver form which repeated many of the mischaracterizations contained in the court's oral colloquy (see People v Howard, 183 AD3d 640). Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim (see id.; People v Fuller, 163 AD3d 715).
However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
RIVERA, J.P., MALTESE, BARROS, BRATHWAITE NELSON and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court