CARROLL, DIONTE, PEOPLE v ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    91
    KA 15-01824
    PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    DIONTE CARROLL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (JOHN GILSENAN, OF THE
    PENNSYLVANIA AND MICHIGAN BARS, ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE, OF COUNSEL),
    FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL
    OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Thomas J.
    Miller, J.), rendered February 27, 2014. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon
    in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance
    in the third 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 criminal possession of a weapon in the
    second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and criminal possession of a
    controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1]). We agree
    with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid
    because “ ‘the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient
    to establish that the court engage[d] the defendant in an adequate
    colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a
    knowing and voluntary choice’ ” (People v Jones, 107 AD3d 1589, 1589,
    lv denied 21 NY3d 1075). Contrary to the People’s contention, the
    written waiver of the right to appeal, which was not signed until
    sentencing, does not serve to validate the otherwise inadequate oral
    waiver where, as here, “there is no indication that [the court]
    obtained a knowing and voluntary waiver of that right at the time of
    the plea” (People v Sims, 129 AD3d 1509, 1510, lv denied 26 NY3d 935;
    see People v Lawson [appeal No. 7], 124 AD3d 1249, 1250). We
    nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
    Entered:    March 24, 2017                         Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 15-01824

Filed Date: 3/24/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/24/2017