

People v Pacheco (2016 NY Slip Op 03021)





People v Pacheco


2016 NY Slip Op 03021


Decided on April 20, 2016


Appellate Division, Second Department


Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.


This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.



Decided on April 20, 2016
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
ROBERT J. MILLER
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.


2013-08568
 (Ind. No. 3079/12)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vRobin Pacheco, appellant.


Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY, for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (William Branigan, John M. Castellano, and Johnnette Traill of counsel; Lorrie A. Zinno on the memorandum), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), imposed July 18, 2013, 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 distinction between the right to appeal and other trial rights forfeited incident to his plea of guilty (see People v Gordon, 127 AD3d 1230, 1230; People v Cantarero, 123 AD3d 841, 841; People v Bennett, 115 AD3d 973, 973). Furthermore, although the record on appeal reflects that the defendant executed a written appeal waiver form, the transcript of the plea shows that the court did not ascertain on the record whether the defendant had read the waiver or discussed it with defense counsel, or whether he was even aware of its contents (see People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133, 145). Under the circumstances here, we conclude that the defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to appeal (see People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133; see generally People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-267; People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255).
Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
ENG, P.J., LEVENTHAL, DICKERSON, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court


