PEOPLE v. TUCKER (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Claudia Daniels-DePeyster, J.), imposed March 15, 2024, 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 record does not demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see generally People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145).  Under the particular circumstances of this case, in which the defendant was only 20 years old at the time of the plea proceeding and had limited experience with the criminal justice system, the Supreme Court's oral colloquy was potentially misleading as to whether the defendant retained the right to challenge the sentence as excessive or raise suppression issues even after waiving his right to appeal.  In particular, the court specifically identified suppression and excessive sentence issues as contentions that could be raised on an appeal and immediately thereafter, without any further explanation, stated that by waiving his right to appeal, the defendant was “giving up some of those rights” (emphasis added) (see People v. Johnson, 241 A.D.3d 706, 238 N.Y.S.3d 300).  Moreover, on this record, the written appeal waiver could not serve to cure the ambiguity in the oral colloquy, as the court did not discuss the written waiver with the defendant, including to confirm that the defendant had read or understood it, discussed it with counsel, or even signed it (see People v. Mezacamacho, 250 A.D.3d 971, 258 N.Y.S.3d 330;  People v. Gibson, 244 A.D.3d 751, 245 N.Y.S.3d 593).

Thus, the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid and does not preclude appellate review of his excessive sentence claim (see People v. Mezacamacho, 250 A.D.3d at 971, 258 N.Y.S.3d 330;  People v. Johnson, 241 A.D.3d at 707, 238 N.Y.S.3d 300).  Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, WAN, GOLIA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.