Court Opinion

ID: 4352243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-12-19 20:33:56.222972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:34.935092
License: Public Domain

People v Fitzhugh (2018 NY Slip Op 08686)

People v Fitzhugh

2018 NY Slip Op 08686

Decided on December 19, 2018

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 December 19, 2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
SANDRA L. SGROI
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

2016-09971
 (Ind. No. 8831/15)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vFreddy Fitzhugh, appellant.

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Anna Kou of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Seth M. Lieberman of counsel; Ruby D. Andrade on the memorandum), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin P. Murphy, J.), imposed September 7, 2016, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
The record of the plea proceeding does not demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal. The Supreme Court, in its waiver colloquy, suggested that the waiver of the right to appeal was mandatory. Further, the court failed to establish on the record that the defendant read and understood the written waiver, or discussed the written waiver with his counsel. Accordingly, the purported waiver of the defendant's right to appeal is not enforceable (see People v Johnson, 157 AD3d 964; People v Simon, 153 AD3d 1435; People v Colon, 153 AD3d 550; People v Head, 147 AD3d 1083; People v Bynum, 142 AD3d 1183; People v Burnett-Hicks, 133 AD3d 773).
Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
RIVERA, J.P., SGROI, HINDS-RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court