PEOPLE v. BURRIS (2024)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from two sentences of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Toni M. Cimino, J.), both imposed October 18, 2022, upon his pleas of guilty, on the ground that the sentences were excessive.

ORDERED that the sentences are affirmed.

The defendant's purported waivers of his right to appeal were invalid because the Supreme Court's oral colloquy mischaracterized the appellate rights waived as encompassing the loss of attendant rights to counsel and poor person relief by telling the defendant, “you're giving up your right to have an attorney assigned to represent you on appeal if you cannot afford one” (see People v. Matthew M., 224 A.D.3d 927, 929, 206 N.Y.S.3d 671;  People v. Erdaide, 216 A.D.3d 1178, 188 N.Y.S.3d 211).  Moreover, the court did not discuss the appeal waivers with the defendant until after he had already admitted his guilt as part of the plea agreements (see People v. Torres, 229 A.D.3d 469, 214 N.Y.S.3d 149;  People v. Deas, 228 A.D.3d 954, 954–955, 212 N.Y.S.3d 212;  People v. Reyes, 227 A.D.3d 830, 831, 210 N.Y.S.3d 767).  Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's execution of written waivers of the right to appeal did not cure the deficient oral colloquy (see People v. Lawrence, 227 A.D.3d 829, 208 N.Y.S.3d 711;  People v. Erdaide, 216 A.D.3d 1178, 188 N.Y.S.3d 211).

Nonetheless, the sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., WOOTEN, VOUTSINAS and LOVE, JJ., concur.