People v. Cobian
This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 04759 (People v. Cobian) 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.
Opinion
| People v Cobian |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 04759 |
| Decided on August 26, 2020 |
| 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 August 26, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
SHERI S. ROMAN
ROBERT J. MILLER
PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
2018-14429
(Ind. No. 930/17)
v
Adam Cobian, appellant.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Felice Milani of counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Sharyn Gitter of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (John B. Collins, J.), rendered October 27, 2017, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the defendant that he did not validly waive the right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545; People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255). The County Court failed to sufficiently explain the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right (see People v Parrish, 179 AD3d 841; People v Solomon, 178 AD3d 966; People v Himonitis, 174 AD3d 738). The fact that the defendant executed a written waiver of the right to appeal is not a complete substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal (see People v Parrish, 179 AD3d at 841-842; People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133, 139). Thus, appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive is not precluded by the purported waiver. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2020 NY Slip Op 04759, 127 N.Y.S.3d 329, 186 A.D.3d 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cobian-nyappdiv-2020.