Court Opinion

ID: 9940602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 20:13:18.055152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:18.025912
License: Public Domain

People v Smith (2024 NY Slip Op 00787)

People v Smith

2024 NY Slip Op 00787

Decided on February 14, 2024

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 February 14, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

BETSY BARROS, J.P.
PAUL WOOTEN
BARRY E. WARHIT
JANICE A. TAYLOR
LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.

2022-06908
 (Ind. No. 70057/22)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vKarim Smith, appellant.

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Victoria L. Benton of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill of counsel; Christopher Moore on the memorandum), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (John F. Zoll, J.), imposed August 18, 2022, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the record does not demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). The Supreme Court did not address the appeal waiver as part of the plea agreement being offered to the defendant before the agreement was reached, and it was not until after the defendant had already admitted his guilt that the court discussed the waiver with the defendant (see People v Heft, 220 AD3d 806; People v Blake, 210 AD3d 901, 901; People v Adyl K., 187 AD3d 1208, 1208-1209; People v Sutton, 184 AD3d 236, 245; People v Artis, 177 AD3d 758, 759). Thus, the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal does not preclude appellate review of his excessive sentence claim (see People v Artis, 177 AD3d at 759).
However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
BARROS, J.P., WOOTEN, WARHIT, TAYLOR and LOVE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Acting Clerk of the Court