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. Jason Pointdujour, appellant.
Submitted—January 23, 2019
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Deborah Stevens–Modica, J., at plea and sentence; Douglas Wong, J., at resentence), imposed October 27, 2016, on the ground that the resentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.
The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, as the record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and the other trial rights that are forfeited incident to a plea of guilty (see People v. Hong Mo Lin, 163 AD3d 849; People v. Santeramo, 153 AD3d 1286, 1286). Moreover, the Supreme Court failed to provide the defendant with an adequate explanation of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right (see People v. Alston, 163 AD3d 843; People v. Etienne, 152 AD3d 790). Further, although the record reflects that the defendant executed a written appeal waiver form, the transcript of the plea proceeding shows that the court did not ascertain on the record whether the defendant had read the waiver or whether he was even aware of its content (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 267; People v. Santeramo, 153 AD3d at 1287; People v. Cambridge, 145 AD3d 795, 795–796). Finally, the court “never elicited an acknowledgment that the defendant was voluntarily waiving his right to appeal” (People v. Santeramo, 153 AD3d at 1286). Accordingly, the defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to appeal, and thus, the waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim (see People v. Dixon, 163 AD3d 988, 989; People v. Brown, 122 AD3d 133).
Nevertheless, the resentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
AUSTIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, COHEN, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2016–12170 (Ind.No. 1214 /15)
Decided: April 10, 2019
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)