People v. Wright

• Decision Date: 24 November 2021
• Docket Number: S.C.I. 230/19,2021-00009
• Citation: 2021 NY Slip Op 06635
• Parties: The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Justin L. Wright, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

2021 NY Slip Op 06635

The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v.
Justin L. Wright, appellant.

No. 2021-00009, S.C.I. No. 230/19

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

November 24, 2021

Carol Kahn, New York, NY, for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Peter M. Forman, J.), rendered December 22, 2020, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to consecutive determinate terms of five years of imprisonment to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision, on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and five years of imprisonment to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision, on the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, on the facts, and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the period of postrelease supervision imposed on the conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree from three years to two years; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid because the County Court's oral colloquy mischaracterized the appellate rights waived as encompassing a bar to filing an appellate brief and the loss of attendant rights to counsel and poor person relief (see People v Kaye, 190 A.D.3d 767, 767-768; People v Sealey, 187 A.D.3d 1067, 1067; People v Walder, 186 A.D.3d 1272, 1272; see also People v Howard, 183 A.D.3d 640, 640; People v McDowell, 181 A.D.3d 716, 716; People v Baptiste, 181 A.D.3d 696, 696). Although the People cite to a written waiver that was apparently signed by the defendant, the court failed to confirm that the defendant understood the contents of the written waiver (see People v Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 566; People v Kaye, 190 A.D.3d at 767-768; People v Christopher B., 184 A.D.3d 657, 659; People v Slade, 180 A.D.3d 1073, 1075). Moreover, the portion of the written waiver relied upon by the People did not cure the defects in the...