Court Opinion

ID: 9368427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 21:06:14.604298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.686793
License: Public Domain

People v Latta (2023 NY Slip Op 00590)

People v Latta

2023 NY Slip Op 00590

Decided on February 3, 2023

Appellate Division, Fourth 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 February 3, 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CURRAN, MONTOUR, AND OGDEN, JJ.

979 KA 18-01801

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
vGREGORY LATTA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

ERIK TEIFKE, ACTING PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LISA GRAY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

	Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered February 6, 2018. The judgment convicted defendant upon a plea of guilty of criminal sexual act in the first degree. 
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sexual act in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [4]), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and thus does not foreclose his challenge to the severity of the negotiated sentence. The People correctly concede that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because Supreme Court's oral colloquy and the written waiver of the right to appeal provided defendant with erroneous information about the scope of the waiver and failed to identify that certain rights would survive the waiver (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 564-566 [2019], cert denied — US &mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]; People v McMillian, 185 AD3d 1420, 1421 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1096 [2020]). We nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Entered: February 3, 2023
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court