People v. Dragone

People v Dragone (2021 NY Slip Op 01596)

People v Dragone

2021 NY Slip Op 01596

Decided on March 19, 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 March 19, 2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

230 KA 16-01479

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

v

ERIC L. DRAGONE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (SUSAN C. MINISTERO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JOHN J. FLYNN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DANIELLE E. PHILLIPS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell P. Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered June 21, 2016. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law

§§ 110.00, 125.25 [2]), defendant contends that he did not validly waive his right to appeal. As the People correctly concede, Supreme Court provided defendant with erroneous information about the scope of the waiver of the right to appeal, including characterizing it as an absolute bar to the taking of an appeal, and we thus conclude that the colloquy was insufficient to ensure that defendant's waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 564-567 [2019], cert denied — US &mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]). We note that "[t]he better practice is for the court to use the Model Colloquy, which neatly synthesizes . . . the governing principles" (People v Somers, 186 AD3d 1111, 1112 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 976 [2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Thomas, 34 NY3d at 567; NY Model Colloquies, Waiver of Right to Appeal). Nevertheless, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: March 19, 2021

Mark W. Bennett

Clerk of the Court