PEOPLE v. PAIGE (2025)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (William Favreau, J.), rendered December 15, 2021, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

In satisfaction of a six-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and purportedly waived the right to appeal.  Consistent with the plea agreement, County Court sentenced defendant to concurrent seven-year prison terms for each conviction, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision.  Defendant appeals.

We affirm.  Initially, we agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid.  The record reflects that County Court “failed to explain the separate and distinct nature of the waiver so as to make clear that the right to appeal is not automatically forfeited upon entry of a guilty plea” (People v. Reynolds, 231 A.D.3d 1433, 1434, 219 N.Y.S.3d 482 [3d Dept. 2024] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted];  accord People v. Spencer, 219 A.D.3d 981, 982, 194 N.Y.S.3d 818 [3d Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 1041, 200 N.Y.S.3d 770, 223 N.E.3d 1246 [2023]).  Further, although defendant executed a written waiver, the court failed to ascertain whether defendant had read the waiver or had discussed it with counsel (see People v. Little, 230 A.D.3d 1432, 1432, 217 N.Y.S.3d 300 [3d Dept. 2024]).  Accordingly, defendant's challenge to the severity of his sentence is not precluded (see People v. Gouge, 239 A.D.3d 1143, 1144, 236 N.Y.S.3d 400 [3d Dept. 2025];  People v. Gibbs, 232 A.D.3d 937, 939, 219 N.Y.S.3d 808 [3d Dept. 2024]).  That said, the concurrent sentences imposed were well below the maximum authorized sentences on the convictions for the higher counts contained in the indictment and, given the seriousness of the crimes, we do not find the sentences to be unduly harsh or severe and we decline his request to modify the sentences as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[3][c];  [6][b]).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Aarons, J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Lynch, Powers and Mackey, JJ., concur.