Court Opinion

ID: 8210991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-30 20:05:57.269105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:58.791121
License: Public Domain

People v Washington (2022 NY Slip Op 05465)

People v Washington

2022 NY Slip Op 05465

Decided on September 30, 2022

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 September 30, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

717 KA 18-02223

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
vANTWUAN J. WASHINGTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

JILL L. PAPERNO, ACTING PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (TONYA PLANK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

	Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas E. Moran, J.), rendered June 14, 2018. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. 
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.03 [3]). Preliminarily, as defendant correctly contends and the People do not dispute, the record does not establish that defendant validly waived his right to appeal. Supreme Court's "oral waiver colloquy and the written waiver signed by defendant together 'mischaracterized the nature of the right that defendant was being asked to cede, portraying the waiver as an absolute bar to defendant taking an appeal and the attendant rights to counsel and poor person relief, as well as a bar to all postconviction relief, and there is no clarifying language in either the oral or written waiver indicating that appellate review remained available for certain issues' " (People v Johnson, 192 AD3d 1494, 1495 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 965 [2021]; see People v Shanks, 37 NY3d 244, 253 [2021]; People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 564-566 [2019], cert denied — US &mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]). Although we are thus not precluded from reviewing defendant's challenge to the severity of the period of postrelease supervision imposed by the court, we nevertheless conclude that such aspect of his sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Entered: September 30, 2022
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court