People v. Parrish

2020 NY Slip Op 305, 179 A.D.3d 841, 113 N.Y.S.3d 900
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 15, 2020
DocketInd. No. 2325-15
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 305 (People v. Parrish) 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. Parrish, 2020 NY Slip Op 305, 179 A.D.3d 841, 113 N.Y.S.3d 900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

People v Parrish (2020 NY Slip Op 00305)
People v Parrish
2020 NY Slip Op 00305
Decided on January 15, 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 January 15, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

2018-01282
(Ind. No. 2325-15)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Michael D. Parrish, appellant.


Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel; Amanda E. Schaefer on the brief), for appellant.

Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Marion Tang of counsel), for

respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (John B. Collins, J.), rendered November 1, 2017, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenges to the voluntariness of his plea of guilty (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). In any event, the record belies his claim that his plea of guilty was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see People v Mitchell, 166 AD3d 1233, 1234-1235).

We agree with the defendant that he did not validly waive the right to appeal. The County Court failed to explain the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right (see People v Lall, 174 AD3d 740). 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 Moncrieft, 168 AD3d 982, 984; 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).

DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, 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

People v. Ofield
201 A.D.3d 743 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Graziano
2020 NY Slip Op 04764 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. Cobian
2020 NY Slip Op 04759 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 NY Slip Op 305, 179 A.D.3d 841, 113 N.Y.S.3d 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-parrish-nyappdiv-2020.