PEOPLE v. NATHANIEL (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Craig S. Walker, J.), imposed May 9, 2022, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970).  Among other things, during the appeal waiver colloquy, the Supreme Court did not explain what an appeal is or that a waiver of the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty (see People v. Alexander, 225 A.D.3d 890, 891, 206 N.Y.S.3d 188) and never elicited an acknowledgment that the defendant was voluntarily waiving his right to appeal (see People v. Muhammad, 231 A.D.3d 868, 869, 219 N.Y.S.3d 403;  People v. Santillan, 200 A.D.3d 1074, 1075, 155 N.Y.S.3d 821).  In light of the defendant's age, limited education, cognitive limitations, and lack of prior experience with the criminal justice system, the written waiver form was insufficient to overcome the deficiencies in the oral colloquy (see People v. Muhammad, 231 A.D.3d at 869, 219 N.Y.S.3d 403).  Since the purported appeal waiver was invalid, it does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim (see People v. Haughton, 229 A.D.3d 467, 212 N.Y.S.3d 446).

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

DUFFY, J.P., GENOVESI, FORD, TAYLOR and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.