| People v Barrow |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 06622 |
| Decided on November 24, 2021 |
| Appellate Division, Second 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 November 24, 2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON
LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ.
2019-11789
(Ind. No. 83/19)
v
Pamela Barrow, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Sarah B. Cohen of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Roni C. Piplani of counsel; Lorrie A. Zinno on the memorandum), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by her motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Barry Kron, J.), imposed September 19, 2019, upon her plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the record does not establish that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her right to appeal (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 265-266). The Supreme Court mischaracterized the nature of the right to appeal by stating that the defendant's sentence and conviction would be final (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545), and the written waiver of the right to appeal did not overcome the deficiencies in the court's explanation of the right to appeal, as it did not contain clarifying language that appellate review remained available for select issues (see id.). Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude this Court's review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim (see People v Fuller, 163 AD3d 715).
However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
MASTRO, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, BRATHWAITE NELSON and GENOVESI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court