PEOPLE v. ORTIZ

107896.

2017 NY Slip Op 06111

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANDRES ORTIZ, Appellant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

G. Scott Walling , Schenectady, for appellant.

Robert M. Carney , District Attorney, Schenectady ( Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch, Rose and Devine, JJ.


Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Sypniewski, J.), rendered May 15, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LYNCH, J.

In 2008, defendant pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant was permitted to participate in a drug treatment program and, upon successful completion, would be sentenced to no more than five years of probation. Otherwise, County Court had the discretion to sentence defendant up to the maximum statutory prison term of 2 to 7 years. Defendant absconded from the drug treatment program and, following his return to court in 2015, County Court sentenced him to the maximum prison term of 2 to 7 years. Defendant now appeals.

We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. A review of the plea colloquy reflects that County Court did not explain "that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty" (People v Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256 [2006]; see People v Herbert, 147 A.D.3d 1208, 1208 [2017]). Furthermore, although a detailed written appeal waiver was executed by defendant, the court made "no attempt . . . to ensure that defendant understood the content or consequences of the appeal waiver" (People v Herbert, 147 AD3d at 1209 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264 [2011]). As such, defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed is not precluded by the appeal waiver. We are, nevertheless, unpersuaded by defendant's contention that the sentence is harsh and excessive. A review of the record reveals no extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of the court's discretion and, as such, the sentence imposed will not be disturbed (see People v Woodward, 43 A.D.3d 496, 496 [2007]; People v Hope, 32 A.D.3d 1115, 1116 [2006]; see also People v Griffin, 284 A.D.2d 809, 810 [2001], lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 682 [2001]).

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases