PEOPLE v. WALKER (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lisa Grey, J.), imposed December 22, 2022, upon her plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the People's contention, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's purported waiver of her right to appeal was invalid.  The Supreme Court failed to advise the defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal did not encompass the loss of attendant rights to counsel and poor person relief (see People v. Ortega, 228 A.D.3d 784, 784, 210 N.Y.S.3d 781;  People v. Hopkins, 227 A.D.3d 734, 734, 209 N.Y.S.3d 569).  Moreover, the written waiver of the right to appeal, as executed by the defendant, did not include clarifying language regarding which issues survived the appeal waiver (see People v. Boykin, 219 A.D.3d 499, 499, 192 N.Y.S.3d 260;  People v. Marinelli, 205 A.D.3d 734, 734, 165 N.Y.S.3d 717), and failed to inform the defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal did not waive her “ ‘right to prosecute an appeal as a poor person, and to have an attorney assigned if indigent’ ” (People v. Stokes, 232 A.D.3d 631, 631, 219 N.Y.S.3d 433, quoting People v. Shanks, 37 N.Y.3d 244, 253, 154 N.Y.S.3d 646, 176 N.E.3d 682 [alterations and internal quotation marks omitted];  see People v. Juin, 197 A.D.3d 571, 573, 151 N.Y.S.3d 696).  Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude this Court's review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim.

However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WAN and GOLIA, JJ., concur.