PEOPLE v. KEISHAWN (2018)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from four sentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin P. Murphy, J.), all imposed February 3, 2016, on the ground that the sentences were excessive.

ORDERED that the sentences are 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 N.Y.3d 248, 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145).  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, who was 16 years old at the time he entered into the subject plea agreements, and who did not have any prior experience with the criminal justice system, understood the distinction between the right to appeal and the other trial rights which are forfeited incident to a plea of guilty (see People v. Guniss, 160 A.D.3d 895, 75 N.Y.S.3d 224;  People v. Johnson, 157 A.D.3d 964, 965, 67 N.Y.S.3d 492;  People v. Kupershmidt, 152 A.D.3d 797, 798, 59 N.Y.S.3d 139).  Moreover, the Supreme Court failed to establish on the record that the defendant read and understood the written waiver, or discussed the waiver with his counsel (see People v. Johnson, 157 A.D.3d at 965, 67 N.Y.S.3d 492).  Consequently, the purported waiver of the defendant's right to appeal is not enforceable (see People v. Guniss, 160 A.D.3d at 895, 75 N.Y.S.3d 224;  People v. Johnson, 157 A.D.3d at 965, 67 N.Y.S.3d 492).

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

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., AUSTIN, MILLER, HINDS–RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.