People v. Montgomery

People v Montgomery (2021 NY Slip Op 00929)

People v Montgomery

2021 NY Slip Op 00929

Decided on February 11, 2021

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 February 11, 2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

94 KA 16-02359

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

LARRY D. MONTGOMERY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Judith A. Sinclair, J.), rendered September 27, 2016. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary 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 burglary in the third degree (Penal Law

§ 140.20). We agree with defendant that the record does not establish that he validly waived his right to appeal. Here, the rights encompassed by defendant's purported waiver of the right to appeal "were mischaracterized during the oral colloquy and in [the] written form[] executed by defendant[], which indicated the waiver was an absolute bar to direct appeal, failed to signal that any issues survived the waiver and . . . advised that the waiver encompassed 'collateral relief on certain nonwaivable issues in both state and federal courts' " (People v Bisono, — NY3d &mdash, &mdash, 2020 NY Slip Op 07484, *2 [2020], quoting People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 566 [2019], cert denied — US &mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]). We conclude that defendant's purported waiver is not enforceable inasmuch as the totality of the circumstances fails to reveal that defendant "understood the nature of the appellate rights being waived" (Thomas, 34 NY3d at 559; see People v Stenson, 179 AD3d 1449, 1449 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 974 [2020]). Although we are thus not precluded from reviewing defendant's challenge to the severity of his sentence, we nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: February 11, 2021

Mark W. Bennett

Clerk of the Court