

People v Randall (2017 NY Slip Op 05011)





People v Randall


2017 NY Slip Op 05011


Decided on June 16, 2017


Appellate Division, Fourth 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 June 16, 2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND NEMOYER, JJ.


840 KA 14-02283

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
vFABIAN RANDALL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 


TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANE I. YOON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O'BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

	Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Victoria M. Argento, J.), rendered October 2, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree. 
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [4]). Preliminarily, we note that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is not valid. The perfunctory inquiry made by County Court during the plea colloquy was not sufficient "to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice" (People v Beaver, 128 AD3d 1493, 1494 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Moreover, although the record includes a signed written waiver of the right to appeal, there was no "attempt by the court to ascertain on the record an acknowledgment from defendant that he had, in fact, signed the waiver or that, if he had, he was aware of its contents" and understood them (People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 283; see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 265; cf. People v Bryant, 28 NY3d 1094, 1095-1096). We nevertheless conclude that defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence is without merit.
Entered: June 16, 2017
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court


