PEOPLE v. KADRIU (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from two sentences of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mario F. Mattei, J.), both imposed May 6, 2022, upon his pleas of guilty, on the ground that the sentences were excessive.

ORDERED that the sentences are affirmed.

Under the totality of the circumstances, the record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970;  People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145).  Although it would have been better practice for the Supreme Court to discuss with the defendant the waiver of his appellate rights before obtaining an admission of guilt (see People v. Downing, 233 A.D.3d 965, 966, 222 N.Y.S.3d 671), the record reflects, inter alia, that the defendant was aware of the People's demand for an appeal waiver, he discussed the appeal waiver with his attorney before pleading guilty, and he signed a written appeal waiver in open court.  Contrary to the defendant's contentions, under the circumstances presented, the court's delay in explaining the appeal waiver until after the defendant's factual allocution of the crimes did not render the appeal waiver invalid (see People v. Bryant, 28 N.Y.3d 1094, 1095, 45 N.Y.S.3d 335, 68 N.E.3d 60;  People v. Downing, 233 A.D.3d at 966, 222 N.Y.S.3d 671).  The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentences imposed were excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 253, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;  People v. Florio, 179 A.D.3d 834, 835, 113 N.Y.S.3d 886).

IANNACCI, J.P., GENOVESI, DOWLING, LANDICINO and HOM, JJ., concur.