PEOPLE v. MONSERRATE (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bahaati E. Pitt–Burke, J. at May 13, 2021 hearing, Llinét M. Rosado, J. at motion to invalidate certificate of compliance, and Marsha D. Michael, J., at CPL 30.30 motion, plea, and sentencing), rendered June 8, 2023, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree, and sentencing him as a second violent felony offender to a term of 12 years followed by five years of post-release supervision, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant validly waived his right to appeal, which forecloses review of his statutory speedy trial and excessive sentence claims.  “The combination of the court's colloquy and the detailed written waiver that defendant signed after consultation with counsel satisfied the requirements of a valid waiver” (People v. Commisso, 224 A.D.3d 463, 464, 203 N.Y.S.3d 92 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 1001, 213 N.Y.S.3d 249, 236 N.E.3d 1267 [2024];  see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 560, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019]).  While the court did not explicitly enumerate the constitutional rights that survive the waiver, the “totality of circumstances,” including the written waiver executed in open court and after consultation with defense counsel, demonstrates that defendant “had a full appreciation of the consequences of the waiver” (People v. Castillo, 226 A.D.3d 573, 574, 207 N.Y.S.3d 525 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 1017, 214 N.Y.S.3d 306, 237 N.E.3d 1246 [2024] [internal quotation marks omitted]).  Specifically, the court's colloquy explained in clear and comprehensive detail the nature of the appellate rights being waived, as did the written waiver.  Defendant acknowledged that he understood the rights he was waiving, that these rights were distinct from trial rights and a condition of his guilty plea, that he was satisfied with his counsel's representation, had read the waiver of appeal and had an opportunity to discuss it with counsel, and was voluntarily waiving his right to appeal (see People v. Castillo, 226 A.D.3d at 574, 207 N.Y.S.3d 525).  The record does not support defendant's contention that the court misled him as to his right to appellate counsel on the limited appeals to which he was still entitled despite the waiver (cf.  People v. Kyra J., 180 A.D.3d 929, 929–930, 115 N.Y.S.3d 905 [2d Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 971, 125 N.Y.S.3d 28, 148 N.E.3d 492 [2020]).  As a result of this valid waiver, we are foreclosed from reviewing the merits of defendant's speedy trial and excessive sentence claims (see People v. Suber, 231 A.D.3d 447, 447, 217 N.Y.S.3d 554 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 932, 229 N.Y.S.3d 92, 254 N.E.3d 636 [2025];  People v. Miranda, 196 A.D.3d 417, 418, 146 N.Y.S.3d 781 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 994, 152 N.Y.S.3d 423, 174 N.E.3d 363 [2021]).