People v. Blackwell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Blackwell

2017 NY Slip Op 4663, 151 A.D.3d 1714, 53 N.Y.S.3d 863

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 9, 2017

Docket702 KA 15-00080

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4663 (People v. Blackwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Blackwell, 2017 NY Slip Op 4663, 151 A.D.3d 1714, 53 N.Y.S.3d 863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Melchor E. Castro, A.J.), rendered September 24, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the third 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 grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35 [1]). We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is not valid. In order for this Court to uphold a waiver of the right to appeal, “[t]he record must establish that the defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty — the right to remain silent, the right to confront one’s accusers and the right to a jury trial, for example” (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Such a waiver is ineffective where as here, defendant, notwithstanding a written waiver, “never orally confirmed that he grasped the concept of the appeal waiver and the nature of the right he was forgoing” (People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 267 [2011]; cf. People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Gibson, 147 AD3d 1507, 1507 [2017]). Nevertheless, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Present — Smith, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Curran, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Melchor E. Castro, A.J.), rendered September 24, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the third 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 grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35 [1]). We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is not valid. In order for this Court to uphold a waiver of the right to appeal, “[t]he record must establish that the defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty — the right to remain silent, the right to confront one’s accusers and the right to a jury trial, for example” (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Such a waiver is ineffective where as here, defendant, notwithstanding a written waiver, “never orally confirmed that he grasped the concept of the appeal waiver and the nature of the right he was forgoing” (People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 267 [2011]; cf. People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Gibson, 147 AD3d 1507, 1507 [2017]). Nevertheless, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Present — Smith, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Curran, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4663, 151 A.D.3d 1714, 53 N.Y.S.3d 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-blackwell-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack