People v. Omaro, 2018–10324
| Decision Date | 09 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | Ind. No. 219/17,2018–10324 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jamal G. OMARO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Alice R.B. Cullina of counsel), for Appellant.
Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Anne Grady of counsel), for Respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid. The Supreme Court's statements at the plea allocution improperly suggested that the right to appeal is automatically extinguished upon the entry of a plea of guilty, and there is no indication in the record that the defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and other trial rights forfeited incident to a plea of guilty (see People v. Moyett , 7 N.Y.3d 892, 892–893, 826 N.Y.S.2d 597, 860 N.E.2d 59 ; People v. Lopez , 6 N.Y.3d 248, 257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Pierre , 165 A.D.3d 1175, 84 N.Y.S.3d 783 ). Although the defendant executed a written appeal waiver, the written waiver also failed to establish that the defendant entered into a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of the right to appeal, as it did not explain the nature of the right to appeal or advise that it was separate and distinct from other rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty (cf. People v. Bryant , 28 N.Y.3d 1094, 1096, 45 N.Y.S.3d 335, 68 N.E.3d 60 ).
Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant's contention, the period of postrelease supervision imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte , 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
To continue reading
Request your trial