PEOPLE v. RIVERA (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 December 6, 2023, 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 People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145).  The Supreme Court failed to advise the defendant that he retained the right to file a notice of appeal and that the waiver did not encompass the loss of attendant rights to counsel and to the waiver of costs, fees, and expenses (see People v. Hopkins, 227 A.D.3d 734, 734, 209 N.Y.S.3d 569).  Furthermore, although the defendant executed a written appeal waiver form, the court failed to confirm that the defendant understood the contents of the written appeal waiver (see People v. Gonzalez, 244 A.D.3d 1229, 1229, 247 N.Y.S.3d 717).  Thus, the purported appeal waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim.

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

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