Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The People, etc., respondent, v. Lenwood Crochran, appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Matthew Sciarrino, Jr., J.), imposed October 28, 2015, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed
A defendant who has validly waived the right to appeal cannot invoke this Court's interest of justice jurisdiction to obtain a reduced sentence (see People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255). Here, however, this Court is not precluded from exercising its interest of justice jurisdiction because the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid. The record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood the nature of the right he was being asked to waive or the distinction between the right to appeal and the other trial rights which are forfeited incident to a plea of guilty (see People v. Brown, 122 AD3d 133, 137–138, 141). Moreover, although the defendant executed a written waiver of his right to appeal, the Supreme Court did not ascertain on the record whether the defendant had read the waiver or whether he was aware of its contents (see People v. Iovino, 142 AD3d 561, 561–562; People v. Brown, 122 AD3d at 145). Under the circumstances, we conclude that the defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to appeal (see People v. Johnson, 157 AD3d 964, 965; People v. Brown, 122 AD3d 133).
Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, LASALLE, ROMAN and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2015–11852 (Ind.No. 7683 /15)
Decided: August 08, 2018
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)